title: Appeal brought on 17 November 1995 by Tiercé Ladbroke SA against the judgment delivered on 18 September 1995 by the First Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-471/93 , between Tiercé Ladbroke SA and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the French Republic (Case C-353/95 P)

text:
No C 31 /8             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 2 . 96
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                    following two supplementary questions, received at the
                       ( Second Chamber)                               Court Registry on 9 November 1995 :
                    of 23 November 1995
in Case C-10/95 P: Asociación Española de Empresas de la               '2 . If the answer to Question 1 is that the supplier's taxable
        Carne v. Council of the European Union ( J )                          amount is the price determined by the supply
(Agriculture — Financing ofhealth inspections and controls                    agreement, then, on the proper construction of
offresh meat andpoultrymeat — Action for annulment ofa                        Article 2 (1 ), is the stated amount paid by the supplier
directive — Natural or legal persons — Acts concerning                        to the dealer consideration for which any supply of
them directly and individually — Appeal clearly                               goods or services is effectedf; and
                             unfounded)
                           ( 96/C 31 / 15 )
                                                                       3.     Ifthe answer to Question 2 is "yes then, on the proper
                                                                              construction of Article 17 (2) (a), are such goods or
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                                services supplied by the dealer to the supplier or to some
                                                                              other person ?'.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                      ( 1 ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 4 .
In Case C-10/95 P: Asociacion Espanola de Empresas de la
Carne ( Asocarne ), an association governed by Spanish law,
based in Madrid, represented by Paloma Llaneza Gonzalez
of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 1 1 rue
Goethe , appellant — appeal against the order of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities ( First
Chamber ) of 20 October 1994 in Case T-99/94 Asocarne v.
Council [ 1994] ECR 11-871 seeking to have that order set              Appeal brought on 17 November 1995 by Tierce Ladbroke
aside, the other party to the proceedings being the Council            SA against the judgment delivered on 18 September 1995 by
of the European Union ( Agents : Ramon Torrent and Ignacio             the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of
Dfez Parra ) — the Court ( Second Chamber ), composed of               First Instance of the European Communities in Case
G. Hirsch, President ( of the Chamber ), G. F. Mancini                 T-471/93 (^ between Tierce Ladbroke SA and the
( Rapporteur ) and F. A. Schockweiler, Judges; M. N.                   Commission of the European Communities, supported by
Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar has made                                        the French Republic
an order on 23 November 1995 , in which it:                                                      ( Case C-353/95 P
                                                                                ( 96/C 31 / 17 )
1 . dismisses the appeal;
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 September
2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.                             1995 by the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Case T-471 /93 between Tierce Ladbroke SA and the
(') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .                                         Commission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                       the French Republic, was brought before the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities on 17 November
                                                                        1995 by Tierce Ladbroke SA, represented by Jeremy Lever,
                                                                       QC, and Christopher Vajda , Barristers of the Bar of England
                                                                       and Wales, and Stephen Kon, Solicitor, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Winandy & Err,
                                                                       60, avenue Gaston Diderich .
                            Information
                             96/C 31 / 1 6
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        1 . allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court
Reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C-40/95 (') was                    of First Instance in Case T-471 /93 ;
made by the VAT and Duties Tribunal , London, by decision
of that court of 1 February 1995 , in the case of Conoco Ltd
against Commissioners of Customs and Excise . By direction             2.     annul    the   contested      Decision  contained   in    the
of 1 November 1995 , the said court has referred the                          Commission's letter of 18 January 1993 , and
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 2 . 96              EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 31 /9
3 . order the Commission to pay the costs of Tierce                    Member State must, whether by primary legislation or
       Ladbroke both in the proceedings before the Court of            otherwise, not grant advantageous treatment to particular
       First Instance and before this Court .                          forms of economic activity subject to that Member State 's
                                                                       jurisdiction . Thus, the fact that Article 15 ( III ) constitutes
                                                                       primary legislation and provides that the statutory and fiscal
                                                                       retentions on bets placed in France on Belgian races are to be
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       the same as if those bets were taken in Belgium — but
                                                                       different from when bets are taken on French races — does
                                                                       not mean that the difference in treatment falls outside the
The Court of First Instance 's finding that the opening of the
French market to the Belgian PMU is not in itselfcontrary to           scope of Article 92 . National law must conform to
Article 92 ( I ) of the Treaty solely because it has the effect of     Community law .
increasing the revenue of the Belgian PMU
                                                                       The Court of First Instance 's finding that the treatment of
                                                                       French bets on Belgian races pursuant to Article 75 (III) is
Where a Member State opens up its market to a foreign                  not a State aid because it does not involve a derogation from
undertaking it is necessary to examine whether the revenue             the general system
received by that foreign undertaking comes either directly
from the Member State or as a result of a State-directed
                                                                       Prior to the commencement of the Two PMUs Agreement
transfer of funds . If that is the case there is State aid unless it
                                                                       and Decret No 91-118 the only bets permitted in France
can be shown that the revenue received is a normal payment             were those placed on French races . That was 'the general
for services rendered by that foreign undertaking to either            system '. Article 15 ( III ) was not applied . The introduction,
the State or the transferor of the funds .
                                                                       in 1991 , of a new and different regime does not mean that
                                                                       the different regime becomes the 'general system',
                                                                       particularly when only one undertaking, namely the Belgian
The error of the Court of First Instance was to fail to
                                                                       PMU, can take advantage of the new regime . Article 92 does
analyse :                                                              not permit a Member State to treat foreign trade subject to
                                                                       its jurisdiction in a different way from domestic trade .
                                                                       Equally, measures which are only of benefit to one
  ( i ) whether the revenue obtained by the Belgian PMU
                                                                       particular undertaking cannot be considered to be part of a
        arose as a result of a compulsory levy and transfer
                                                                       general system.
        payment system; and
( ii ) if so, what amount, if any, of that revenue, could be said      ( 1 ) OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 , p . 12 .
        to be for payment for services rendered by the Belgian
        PMU to the PMU .
The Court of First Instance 's finding that the Commission
committed no manifest error in its findings of fact or in its
assessment of the evidence that the Belgian PMU drew no                Appeal brought on 20 November 1995 by TWD
real advantage from the application of the two PMUs                    Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH against the judgment
Agreement                                                               delivered on 13 September 1995 by the Third Chamber,
                                                                        extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Joined Cases T-244/93 and
 It is common ground that the Belgian PMU receives between
                                                                        T-486/93 between TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH
 25 and 28 % of the bets placed in Belgium on Belgian races
                                                                             and the Commission of the European Communities
 and 23,1 % of bets placed in France on Belgian races . The
 issue is whether on those agreed facts there is a State aid .                                  ( Case C-355/95 P)
 There is either an aid pursuant to Article 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty                                  ( 96/C 31 / 18 )
 or there is not . There is no margin of appreciation on this
 issue . Accordingly the Court of First Instance fell into error
 in considering that the Commission had a margin of                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 September
 appreciation in assessing whether the admitted facts                   1995 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the
 disclosed a State aid .                                                Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                        Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 between TWD
                                                                        Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH and the Commission of the
 The Court of First Instance 's finding that, in considering            European Communities was brought before the Court of
 whether there was any real advantage to the Belgian PMU                Justice of the European Communities on 20 November
 the Commission was entitled to have regard to                           1995 by TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH,
 Article 15 (III) of the Law of 23 December 1964                        Deggendorf ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by
                                                                        Walter Forstner, Lutz Radtke and Karl-Heinz Schupp,
                                                                        Rechtsanwalte , assisted by Professor Michael Schweitzer,
 The question of whether a measure adopted in favour of a               Passau, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
  particular undertaking is a State aid is to be decided by              office of Mr Stein, Bayerische Landesbank International SA,
  Community law not national law. The basic role is that a               7-9, Boulevard Royal .


title: Case T-398/07: Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/17

         Action brought on 31 October 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-398/07)
   (2008/C 8/32)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission Decision of 4 July 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC (Case COMP/38.784 — Wanadoo España v Telefónica) and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is brought against the decision of 4 July 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 EC (Case COMP/38.784 — Wanadoo España v Telefónica) in which the Commission imposed a fine of EUR 151 875 000 on Telefónica, S.A. and jointly and severally on Telefónica de España S.A.U., for an infringement of Article 82 EC. According to the Commission, from September 2001 until December 2006 both companies charged unfair tariffs in the form of disproportion between their wholesale and retail broadband access prices.
   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the following grounds:

               —

               Breach of the duty to cooperate laid down in Article 10 EC and in Article 7(2) of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) in so far as the Commission did not give the Spanish national regulatory authority the opportunity to collaborate with it, for the purposes of considering the means which might have enabled the alleged infringement to be resolved, in the most effective way possible.

               —

               Infringement of Article 82 EC on account of manifest errors of assessment as regards the indispensability of the wholesale products, the calculation of costs and the effects of Telefónica's behaviour on competitors and consumers.

               —

                  Ultra vires application of Article 82 EC, since the contested decision impinges on the regulatory framework for current electronic communications in force in Spain, and thus upsets the balance between ex ante regulation and competition rules. Furthermore, inconsistency of the results obtained by the Commission with international experience and the reality of the Spanish market, impeding the Spanish national regulatory authority from attaining the objectives set out in that regulatory framework, and breach of the principle of specificity.

               —

               Breach of the principle of legal certainty, since the contested decision implies an ex post change in the concept of the regulatory framework as defined ex ante.

               —

               Breach of the principle of legitimate expectation with respect to Telefónica, and with respect to the rest of the operators in that market, by failing to comply with the regulatory framework in a matter that had already been regulated by the Commission for the Telecommunications Market.

      (1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33).


title: Case C-299/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 27 June 2007 — Galatea BVBA v Sanoma Magazines Belgium NV

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 27 June 2007 — Galatea BVBA v Sanoma Magazines Belgium NV
   (Case C-299/07)
   (2007/C 199/36)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Galatea BVBA

      Defendant: Sanoma Magazines Belgium NV
   Question referred
   Do Article 49 of the EC Treaty concerning the freedom to provide services and Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning unfair commercial practices preclude national legislation, such as Article 54 of the Belgian Law of 14 July 1991 on trade practices and consumer information and protection, which — except in the cases listed exhaustively in that law — prohibits any linked offer by a vendor to a consumer whereby the acquisition, whether or not free of charge, of products, services, advantages or vouchers with which they can be obtained is linked to the acquisition of other, even identical, products or services, and this regardless of the circumstances of the case, and especially regardless of the influence which the specific offer may have on the average consumer and regardless of whether that offer can be considered in the specific circumstances to be contrary to professional diligence or fair commercial practices?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 may 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).


title: Case T-438/04: Action brought on 29 October 2004 by Elke Huober against the Council of the European Union

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/44

         Action brought on 29 October 2004 by Elke Huober against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-438/04)
   (2005/C 6/87)
   Language of the Case: French
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 October 2004 by Elke Huober, resident in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Council refusing to grant to the applicant the expatriation allowance and resulting rights, from her entry into service on 1 September 2003;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Before entering into the Council's service, the applicant worked in the information office of the Land Baden-Würtemberg in Brussels. In the present action she challenges the decision refusing to grant her the expatriation allowance.
   In support of her action, the applicant pleads breach of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations in that the Council did not consider that she was in circumstances arising from work done for another State. The applicant also pleads breach of the principle of equal treatment and of non-discrimination.


title: Case T-745/14: Action brought on 5 November 2014 — TeamBank v OHIM — Easy Asset Management (easy Credit)

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/43

         Action brought on 5 November 2014 — TeamBank v OHIM — Easy Asset Management (easy Credit)
   (Case T-745/14)
   (2015/C 007/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (Nürnberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Lindner, D. Terheggen and T. Kiphuth, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Easy Asset Management AD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: The figurative mark containing the word elements ‘easy Credit’ — International Registration designating the European Union No 8 11  527

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2014 in Case R 1975/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision insofar as it concerns goods and services in Classes 36 and 38;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 52(1)(a), 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 53(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-56/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Germany) — Euro Tex Textilverwertung GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Poland — Concept of originating products — Used clothing)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 14 June 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, Germany) — Euro Tex Textilverwertung GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   (Case C-56/06) (1)

   (Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Poland - Concept of ‘originating products’ - Used clothing)
   (2007/C 183/17)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Euro Tex Textilverwertung GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Duisburg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) of Protocol 4 to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part — Protocol 4 concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation (OJ 1993 L 348, p. 2), as amended by Decision No 1/97 of the Association Council, Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part, of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 221, p. 1) — Concept of ‘originating products’ — Determination of the origin of used items of clothing which have been separated and sorted within the Community
   Operative part of the judgment
   Since Article 7(1)(b) of Protocol 4 to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part, as amended by Decision No 1/97 of the Association Council, Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part, of 30 June 1997 does not make it possible to draw a distinction between simple and more complex matching operations, matching operations such as those described in the order for reference are covered by the concept of simple operations of matching for the purposes of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case T-142/14: Order of the General Court of 1 February 2016 — SolarWorld and Others v Council (Actions for annulment — Subsidies — Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China — Definitive countervailing duties — Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking — Non-severability — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/24

         Order of the General Court of 1 February 2016 — SolarWorld and Others v Council
   (Case T-142/14) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Subsidies - Imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (cells) originating in or consigned from China - Definitive countervailing duties - Exemption of imports covered by an accepted undertaking - Non-severability - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 111/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany); Brandoni solare SpA (Castelfidardo, Italy); and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen, acting as Agent)

      Intervening parties in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, T. Maxian Rusche and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc. (Changshu, China); Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc. (Luoyang, China); Csi Cells Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China); Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. (Suzhou) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop, lawyers, and K. Daly, Solicitor); and China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (Beijing, China) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and A. Scalini, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 2 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 66).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd and Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. shall be removed from Case T-142/14 as interveners.

               3.

               SolarWorld AG, Brandoni solare SpA and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA shall pay their own costs and those incurred by the Council of the European Union, including those relating to the application for interim measures.

               4.

               The European Commission, Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Changshu), Inc., Canadian Solar Manufacturing (Luoyang), Inc., Csi Cells Co. Ltd, Csi Solar Power (China), Inc. and the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products shall pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 15 September 1998 in Case C-431/97: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations - Council Directive 94/57/EC - Failure to transpose)

text:
24.10.98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 327/3
    at that date, the directive concerned had not yet been              survey organisations and for the relevant activities of
    properly transposed into national law.                              maritime administrations, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        obligations under Article 16(1) thereof;
2. Community law does not preclude, in the event of the
    repayment of charges levied in breach thereof,                 2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
    payment of interest calculated by methods less
    favourable than those applicable under the ordinary
    rules governing actions for the recovery of sums paid          (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
    but not due between private individuals, provided that
    those methods apply in the same way to such actions
    brought under Community law as to those brought
    under national law.
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 September 1998
                                                                   in    Case   C-323/96: Commission of the European
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                       (Fifth Chamber)                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations Ð Public
                                                                   works contracts Ð Directives 89/440/EEC and 93/37/
                    of 15 September 1998                           EEC Ð Failure to publish a contract notice Ð Application
                                                                           of negotiated procedure without justification)
in   Case   C-431/97: Commission of the            European
                  Communities v Ireland (1)                                                (98/C 327/05)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Council Directive 94/57/
                 EC Ð Failure to transpose)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                        (98/C 327/04)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-431/97: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Berend Jan Drijber) v Ireland
(Agent: Michael A. Buckley) Ð application for a                    In Case C-323/96: Commission of the European
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations        Communities (Agent: Hendrik van Lier) v Kingdom of
or administrative provisions necessary to comply with              Belgium (Agent: Michel FlameÂe) Ð application for a
Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on                  declaration that, by failing to publish a contract notice in
common rules and standards for ship inspection and                 the Official Journal of the European Communities both
survey organisations and for the relevant activities of            for the overall project and for each of the lots relating to
maritime administrations (OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20),            the construction of the premises of the Vlaamse Raad, and
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that            by failing to apply the award procedures laid down in
directive and the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),           Council Directive 89/440/EEC of 18 July 1989, amending
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber,                 Directive 71/305/EEC concerning coordination of
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,               procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ
D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G.                L 210, 21.7.1989, p. 1), and in Council Directive 93/37/
Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a         EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
judgment on 15 September 1998, in which it:                        procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ
                                                                   L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54) and, more specifically, by having
                                                                   awarded Lot No 4 by negotiated procedure without
                                                                   justification, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the                  its obligations under those directives and, more
    prescribed time-limit, the laws, regulations or                specifically, Articles 7 and 11 of Directive 93/37/EEC Ð
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with             the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
    Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on              President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
    common rules and standards for ship inspection and             J. L. Murray and K. M. Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges;


title: Case T-367/05: Action brought on  23 September 2005  — UPC France v Commission

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/15

         Action brought on 23 September 2005 — UPC France v Commission
   (Case T-367/05)
   (2005/C 315/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): UPC France Holding BV (Schiphol-Rijk, Netherlands) (represented by: M.D. Powell and N. Flandin, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision State Aid No 382/2004 — France;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the present action, the applicant requests the annulment of Commission Decision State Aid No 382/2004 — France of 3 May 2005 (1) declaring that the subsidy granted by the French authorities for the construction and operation of a high-throughput telecommunications network in Limousin (DORSAL) does not constitute aid.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on several pleas, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements and infringement of Community law.
   As regards infringement of essential procedural requirements, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its procedural rights by wrongly refraining from initiating the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty and Article 6 of Regulation No 659/99 (2), which would have enabled it, as an interested party, to submit comments before the Commission took the decision.
   By its first plea, relating to infringement of Community law, the applicant claims that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by considering that the measure in question did not contain aid because the subsidy had been granted in connection with compensation for public service and the criteria set out in the decision in Altmark
       (3) had been fulfilled in this case.
   Moreover, the applicant challenges the contested decision inasmuch as it classifies the high output service as public service, when the definition of public service in relation to telecommunications, according to the ‘universal service’ directive, covers only low-throughput services.
   The applicant then submits that if the obligations at issue must be regarded as a public service task, which they are not, the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by taking the view that, in the city of Limoges, there is a shortage of private initiative and absence of competitive forces. It also claims that the procedure used to choose the operator responsible for carrying out a supposed service task in the general interest did not make it possible to select the candidate able to provide the service at the lowest cost for the community. In any event, according to the applicant, in this case and as far as the city of Limoges is concerned the public subsidy cannot be justified as compensation for the carrying out of a public service task and Altmark cannot therefore apply.
   By its next plea, the applicant also relies on substantial procedural irregularities in the procedure for delegation of the public service task which meant that the potential candidates for public service delegation were not accorded equal treatment.
   The final plea raised by the applicant alleges a failure to give sufficient reasons, since the Commission did not explain why it took into consideration the region of Limousin as a whole without taking account of the particular features of urban areas which, like the city of Limoges, present real pockets of competition within the region, nor why it did not at any time in the contested decision refer to the presence of the applicant's network in Limoges.

      (1)  C (2005) 1170 final 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83 of 27.03.1999, p. 1.

      (3)  Case C-280/00 [2003] ECR I-7747.


title: Case T-881/16: Action brought on 14 December 2016 — HJ v EMA

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/24

         Action brought on 14 December 2016 — HJ v EMA
   (Case T-881/16)
   (2017/C 046/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: HJ (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the symbolic sum of EUR 1 by way of compensation for the non-material harm suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to withdraw the memorandum of 22 July 2015 and, consequently, the applicant’s response of 23 July 2015, from the applicant’s personal file;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts (AECE) of 21 March 2016 rejecting the applicant’s claim for damages submitted on 26 November 2015 and annul the decision of the AECE dated 19 October 2016 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of 20 June 2016 against the abovementioned decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that the conditions required for the European Union to be held non-contractually liable, namely that of the illegality of the allegedly wrongful conduct, actual harm and the existence of a causal link between the conduct and the harm alleged to have been suffered, are satisfied in the present case. According to the applicant, the documents in his personal file, which were made public and accessible to any member of staff of the European Medicines Agency for a period of time, were not processed fairly and lawfully but were processed for purposes other than those for which they were collected without that change in purpose having been expressly authorised by the applicant. The dissemination of that sensitive data consequently called into question the applicant’s integrity, causing him real and certain non-material harm. In the applicant’s opinion, that harm must be attributed in its entirety to the Agency’s wrongful conduct.


title: Case T-314/07: Action brought on 22 August 2007 — Simsalagrimm Filmproduktion v Commission and EACEA

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/25

         Action brought on 22 August 2007 — Simsalagrimm Filmproduktion v Commission and EACEA
   (Case T-314/07)
   (2007/C 235/47)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Simsalagrimm Filmproduktion GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Reich and D. Sharma, lawyers)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision Debit Note No 3240905584 of 20 June 2007;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In 1998, the applicant and the Commission signed a contract relating to support for a computer-animated cartoon series within the framework of the MEDIA II — Development and distribution programme (1). By letter of 20 June 2007, EACEA demanded reimbursement by the applicant of all of the monies advanced pursuant to that contract. The applicant brought the present action to contest that decision.
   The applicant claims, first, that EACEA was not formally competent to take the contested decision, as it is the Commission that remains competent in that regard.
   Further, the applicant submits that the contested decision is unlawful because of a breach of the duty to provide reasons for the acts of an authority for the purposes of Article 256 EC.
   In addition, the applicant's rights of defence have been infringed inasmuch as its application to inspect the file was rejected, thus making it impossible for the applicant to determine the criterion used to justify the demand for repayment.
   The applicant complains also that the support contract was not validly terminated, and that the conditions for its termination also did not exist. In that regard, it claims, inter alia, that the termination of the contract and the demand for repayment of the financial support advanced constitute an infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

      (1)  Council Decision 95/563/EC of 10 July 1995 on the implementation of a programme encouraging the development and distribution of European audiovisual works (Media II — Development and distribution) (1996-2000) (OJ 1995 L 321, p. 25).


title: Case C-90/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/12/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/11

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-90/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/12/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 211/20)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: S. Raskin, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 26)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-886/16: Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty (NAILS FACTORY)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/30

         Action brought on 15 December 2016 — Nf Nails In Vogue v EUIPO — Nails & Beauty (NAILS FACTORY)
   (Case T-886/16)
   (2017/C 063/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Nf Nails In Vogue, SL (Arganda del Rey, Spain) (represented by: L. Jáudenes Sánchez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nails & Beauty Vertriebs GmbH (Kiel, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘NAILS FACTORY’ — Application for registration No 13 528 336

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 October 2016 in Case R 202/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible;

               —

               annul the contested decision and uphold the Opposition Division’s decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-192/07: Action brought on 3 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/20

         Action brought on 3 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-192/07)
   (2007/C 117/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1), or, by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2003/86/EC expired on 3 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-194/99 P: Thyssen Stahl AG v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European producers of beams)

text:
15.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 275/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       N. Lacalle Mangas): Appeal against the judgment of the Court
                                                                             of First Instance of the European Communities (Second
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 March 1999 in Case
                                                                             T-156/94 Aristrain v Commission [1999] ECR II-645, seeking
                        of 2 October 2003                                    to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
                                                                             proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities
in Case C-194/99 P: Thyssen Stahl AG v Commission of                         (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils, assisted by J. Rivas de
                 the European Communities (1)                                Andrés), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
                                                                             President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                      P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
                        producers of beams)                                  Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October 2003, in
                         (2003/C 275/05)                                     which it:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             11 March 1999 in Case T-156/94 Aristrain v Commission
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  in so far as the Court of First Instance declared the application
                                                                                for annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of
                                                                                16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
In Case C-194/99 P, Thyssen Stahl AG, established in Duisburg                      Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and
(Germany) (represented by F. Montag): Appeal against the                           concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                            to be unfounded as regards the order that Siderúrgica Aristrain
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of                              Madrid SL pay a fine which also took into account the conduct
11 March 1999 in Case T-141/94 Thyssen Stahl v Commission                          of Aristrain Olaberría SL;
[1999] ECR II-347, seeking to have that judgment set aside in
part, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of                2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils,
assisted by H.-J. Freund), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed               3.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;                 4.    Reserves the costs.
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
2 October 2003, in which it:                                                 (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders Thyssen Stahl AG to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                of 2 October 2003
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             in Case C-198/99 P: Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA
                                                                             (Ensidesa) v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                        of 2 October 2003
in Case C-196/99 P: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL v                        (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                                                     producers of beams)
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                                                (2003/C 275/07)
                        producers of beams)
                         (2003/C 275/06)                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-198/99 P, Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA (Enside-
In Case C-196/99 P, Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL estab-                   sa), established in Avilés (Spain), (represented by S. Martínez
lished in Madrid (Spain) (represented by A. Creus Carreras and               Lage and J. Pérez-Bustamante Köster): Appeal against the


title: Case C-156/12: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — GREP GmbH v Freitstaat Bayern (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 47 and 51(1) — Implementation of European Union law — Action against a decision holding that a ruling delivered in another Member State ordering enforcement procedures was enforceable — Effective judicial protection — Right of access to courts — Legal aid — National legislation refusing legal aid to legal persons)

text:
               6.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/9

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — GREP GmbH v Freitstaat Bayern
   (Case C-156/12) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 47 and 51(1) - Implementation of European Union law - Action against a decision holding that a ruling delivered in another Member State ordering enforcement procedures was enforceable - Effective judicial protection - Right of access to courts - Legal aid - National legislation refusing legal aid to legal persons)
   2012/C 303/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Salzburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: GREP GmbH

      Defendant: Freitstaat Bayern

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Salzburg — Interpretation of the first sentence of Article 51(1) and of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in the alternative, of Article 43(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) and of Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms — Scope of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Procedure for enforcement of a ruling made in another Member State — Right to legal aid — Admissibility of national legislation refusing that right to legal persons

      Operative part of the order

   The action, brought under Article 43 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in order to contest a decision holding that an order for enforcement was enforceable under Article 38 to 42 of that regulation and ordering conservatory attachment measures constitutes implementation of European Union law for the purposes of Article 51 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
   The principle of effective judicial protection, as enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, may include the right to be exempted from payment of procedural costs and/or fees due for obtaining the assistance of a lawyer in respect of such an action.
   However, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the conditions for grant of such aid constitute a restriction on the right of access to courts and tribunals which infringes the very essence of that right, whether they pursue a legitimate aim and whether there is a reasonable level of proportionality between the means used and the aim pursued.
   In carrying out that assessment, the national court may take into consideration the subject-matter of the dispute, any reasonable chances of the applicant’s success, the gravity of what is at stake for him, the complexity of the law and procedure applicable and the ability of the applicant effectively to defend his cause. In order to assess the proportionality, the national court may also take into account the extent of the procedural costs to be advanced and whether or not they constitute an insurmountable obstacle to access to justice.
   Having regard more specifically to legal persons, the national court may take account of their situation. Thus, it may take into consideration, in particular, the legal form of the legal person in question and whether it is for profit or not and the financial capabilities of its members or shareholders and whether it is possible for them to obtain the sums necessary to bring the court proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/1

         (2008/C 8/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 315, 22.12.2007

   Past publications

      OJ C 297, 8.12.2007

      OJ C 283, 24.11.2007

      OJ C 269, 10.11.2007

      OJ C 247, 20.10.2007

      OJ C 235, 6.10.2007

      OJ C 223, 22.9.2007

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


 11 . 11 . 95       | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 299/21
       Removal from the register of Case T-555 /93 (')                3 . the Kingdom of Spain shall hear its own costs.
                          ( 95 /C 299/42 )
                                                                      (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
               (Language of the case: English)
By order of 9 August 1 995 the President of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal                    Removal from the register of Case T-15/94 (')
from the register of Case T-555/93 : David Alwyn Jones v.                                       ( 95 /C 299/44 )
Council of the European Union .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
                                                                      By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-15/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                       of 9 August 1995
in Case T-5 85/93 : Stichting Greenpeace Council
( Greenpeace International ) and Others v. Commission of
                the European Communities (')
                        (Inadmissibility)                                   Removal from the register of Case T- 18/94 (')
                         ( 95/C 299/43 )                                                        ( 95 /C 299/45 )
               (Language of the case: English)                                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
In Case T-585/93 , Stichting Greenpeace Council                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
( Greenpeace International ), Domingo Viera Gonzalez ,                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Pablo Guedes Garcia , Jose Ignacio Trojaola Chavez, Aurora           T- 1 8/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
Gonzalez Gonzalez, Pedro Melián Castro, Caridad Sanchez               Communities .
Artiles, Jose Juan Melián Melián , Carmen Guadalupe
Gomez Castro , Clara Donate Hernandez , Balbina Martin                (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Espínola , Jose Hernandez Morin , German Peña Hernandez ,
Antonio Cabrera Expósito, Valentin Hernandez Vaquero ,
Peter Reinhard , Julio Gonzalez Dominguez, Tagoror
Ecologista Alternativo and Comisión Canaria contra la
Contaminación , represented by Philippe Sands and Mark
Hoskins, Barristers, of the Bar of England and Wales ,                      Removal from the register of Case T-19/94 (')
instructed by Leigh , Day & Co ., Solicitors with an address                                    ( 95/C 299/46 )
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean-Paul
Noesen , 18 Rue des Glacis, against Commission of the                               (Language of the case: French)
European Communities ( Agent: David Gilmour ), supported
by Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto Navarro Gonzalez               By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) — application for annulment of the            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
decision alleged to have been adopted by the Commission               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
between 7 March 1991 and 29 October 1993 to disburse to              T-19/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
the Kingdom of Spain a sum of the order of ECU 1 1 000 000            Communities .
or 12 000 000 pursuant to Decision C(91 ) 440 concerning
financial assistance provided by the European Regional                (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Development Fund for the construction of two power
stations in the Canary Islands ( Gran Canaria and Tenerife )
— the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of
J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili ,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 August                       Removal from the register of Case T-69/94 (')
1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/47 )
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                  ( Language of the case: French)
2 . the applicants shall jointly and severally bear the               By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
     costs ;                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case C-384/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 30 July 2004, in the case of (1) Commissioners of Customs and Excise (2) H.M. Attorney-General against Federation of Technological Industries and 53 others

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court dated 30 July 2004, in the case of (1) Commissioners of Customs and Excise (2) H.M. Attorney-General against Federation of Technological Industries and 53 others
   (Case C-384/04)
   (2004/C 273/31)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) dated 30 July 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 4 September 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of (1) Commissioners of Customs and Excise (2) H.M. Attorney-General against Federation of Technological Industries and 53 others, on the following questions:

               1.

               Does Art. 21.3 of Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) as amended by Council Directive 2000/65/EC permit Member States to provide that any person may be made jointly and severally liable for payment of tax with any person who is made so liable by Art. 21.1 or 21.2, subject only to the general principles of Community law namely that such a measure must be objectively justifiable, rational, proportionate and legally certain?

               2.

               Does Art. 22(8) of the Directive permit Member States to provide that any person may be made so liable or to provide that one person may be required to provide security for tax due from another subject only to the aforesaid general principles?

               3.

               If the answer to question 1 is no, what limits, other than those imposed by the aforesaid general principles, are there on the power conferred by Art. 21.3?

               4.

               If the answer to question 2 is no, what limits, other than those imposed by the aforesaid general principles, are there on the power conferred by Art. 22(8)?

               5.

               Are member states precluded by the Directive as amended from providing for joint and several liability of taxpayers or from requiring one taxpayer to provide security for tax due from another in order to prevent abuse of the VAT system and the protection of revenues properly due under that system, if such measures comply with the aforesaid general principles?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).


title: Case T-456/15: Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Foodcare v OHIM — Michalczewski (T.G.R. ENERGY DRINK)

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/29

         Action brought on 10 August 2015 — Foodcare v OHIM — Michalczewski (T.G.R. ENERGY DRINK)
   (Case T-456/15)
   (2015/C 328/26)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Foodcare sp. z o.o. (Zabierzów, Poland) (represented by: A. Matusik, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dariusz Michalczewski (Gdańsk, Poland)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘T.G.R. ENERGY DRINK’ –Community trade mark No 5 689 237

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2015 in Case R 265/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the contested decision invalid in its entirety;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-3/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 January 2014 — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa SA v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland) lodged on 3 January 2014 — Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa SA v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej
   (Case C-3/14)
   2014/C 102/17
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa SA

      Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), (1) in conjunction with Article 28 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive), (2) be interpreted as meaning that every measure taken by a national regulatory authority in order to fulfil the obligation arising from Article 28 of Directive 2002/22 affects trade between Member States where that measure may ensure that end-users from other Member States are able to access non-geographic numbers within the territory of that Member State?

               2.

               Must Article 7(3) in conjunction with Articles 6 and 20 of Directive 2002/21 be interpreted as meaning that, in resolving disputes between undertakings providing electronic communications networks or services concerning the fulfilment by one of those undertakings of the obligation arising from Article 28 of Directive 2002/22, a national regulatory authority cannot conduct consolidation proceedings even where the measure affects trade between Member States and national law requires the national regulatory authority to conduct consolidation proceedings in every case where a measure may affect that trade?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, must Article 7(3) in conjunction with Articles 6 and 20 of Directive 2002/21, read in conjunction with Article 288 TFEU and Article 4(3) TEU, be interpreted as meaning that a national court is obliged to refrain from applying provisions of national law which require the national regulatory authority to conduct consolidation proceedings in every case where a measure taken by that authority may affect trade between Member States?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51.


title: Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-293/96)

text:
No C 318/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26 . 10 . 96
 received at the Court Registry on 3 September 1996, for a              Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Federal
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against                  Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
Martino Grado and Shahid Bashir on the following                                           European Communities
 question:                                                                                ( Case C-293/96
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/11 )
 Is it compatible with European Community law or is it
 contrary to the prohibition on discrimination laid down in
 Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union for a
 Staatsanwalt ( Public Prosecutor ) expressly to refuse to use          An action against the Commission of the European
 the courtesy title 'Herr' in an application, which he has              Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 drafted and subsequently placed before the court for                   European Communities on 9 September 1996 by the Federal
 signature, for a summary punishment order in the case of a             Republic of Germany, represented by Dr Ernst Roder, of the
 foreign employee ( for the purposes of Articles 48 to 51 of the        Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, D-53107 Bonn, and
Treaty on European Union ) from another Member State of                 Dr Alfred Dittrich, of the Federal Ministry of Justice,
the European Union, particularly where this is contrary to              D-53175 Bonn .
the custom of the Staatsanwaltschaft ( Public Prosecutor's
 Office ) and to the Staatsanwalt's own usual practice ?
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — declare void Article 1 ( 1 ) of Commission Regulation
                                                                            ( EC ) No 1 107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                   geographical indications and designations of origin
Diisseldorf made by order of that court of 14 August 1996                   under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
in the case of Goritz Intransco International GmbH v.                       Regulation ( EEC) No 2081 /92 (') in so far as it is laid
                     Hauptzollamt Diisseldorf                               down in the Annex thereto that for cheeses from Greece
                          ( Case C-292/96 )                                 the designation ' feta ' is to be registered as a protected
                                                                            designation of origin (PDO ) in the 'Register of protected
                             96/C 318/ 10 )
                                                                            designations of origin and protected geographical
                                                                            indications' maintained by the Commission,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Fourth Senate of the
Finanzgericht ( Finance Court ) Diisseldorf of 14 August               — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                         proceedings.
4 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Goritz Intransco International GmbH v. Hauptzollamt
( Principal Customs Office ) Diisseldorf on the following
questions :                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
 1 . Is Article 76 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )
      No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs                    The designation 'feta' does not constitute a designation of
      Code ( 1 ), in conjunction with Article 398 et seq. of            origin within the meaning of Article 2 ( 3 ) of Council
      Commission Regulation (EEC ) No 2454/93 laying                   Regulation (EEC ) No 2081 /92 (2 ). ' Feta ' is not a
      down provisions for the implementation of Council                geographical name . Nor is it a traditional name designating
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 establishing the                   an agricultural product or foodstuff originating in a specific
      Community Customs Code ( 2 ), the legal basis for grant          region or place; cheeses marketed under the name ' feta ' have
      of 'authorized consignor' status, or is such                      been produced for a long time in numerous countries
      authorization, pursuant to Article 76 ( 4 ) of Regulation        outside Greece, for example Denmark, Germany, France ,
      ( EEC ) No 2913/92, to be based only on the said                 the Balkans, Iran and the USA. Moreover, feta cheeses are
      Article 398 et seq.}                                             not products, the quality or characteristics of which are
                                                                       essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical
2 . Does Article 398 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93                  environment with its inherent natural and human factors
      preclude authorization as an 'authorized consignor'              and the production, processing and preparation of which
      where, as a result of goods having already been                  take place in a defined geographical area . According to the
      presented to customs, the exemption from the                     specification submitted by the competent Greek body, the
      obligation to present them is no longer possible ?               administrative district of Lesbos is the only possible area of
                                                                       origin in the Aegean Sea ; pursuant to Regulation ( EEC )
(') OJ No L 302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .                             No 2019/93 ( 3 ) Community law provides for aid for the
( 2 ) OJ No L 253 , 11 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .                           production of feta on such islands as are not referred to in
                                                                       the abovementioned specification . The Federal Government
                                                                       takes the view that ' feta ' is a generic name which by virtue of
                                                                       Article 17 ( 2 ), third sentence, of Regulation No 2081/92
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 10 . 96         I EN 1                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318/7
may not be added to the ' Register of protected                            service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
designations'.                                                             Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(') OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
(•') OJ No L 184, 27 . 7. 1993 , p . 1 .                                   — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                                period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                                93/76/EEC of 13 September 1993 to limit carbon
                                                                                dioxide emissions by improving energy efficiency
Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Commission of                          ( SAVE )( 1 ) and, in any event, by not communicating
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                  those measures to the Commission, the Kingdom of
                                  Belgium                                        Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
                                                                                Directive,
                            Case C-294/96 )
                             ( 96/C 318/ 12 )                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                         The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier and                           put forward in Case C-294/96 ( 2 ); the period prescribed by
                                                                           the Directive expired on 31 December 1994 .
Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                           (') OJ No L 237, 22 . 9 . 1993 , p. 28 .
Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                    ( 2 ) See page 7 of this ed . Official Journal .
Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under the EC Treaty by not adopting                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
      within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and               Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli — by
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                   order of that court of 9 June 1995 in the criminal
      Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993                                       proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola
      concerning medical devices ('),                                                                ( Case C-296/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/ 14 )
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                         European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                           Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
The binding character of the third paragraph of Article 189                ( Rome District Magistrates' Court — Tivoli Division ) of
of the EC Treaty places Member States to whom Directives                   9 June 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
are addressed under an obligation to adopt the measures                    9 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
necessary to comply with those Directives within the time                  proceedings against Giancarlo Pezzola on questions
limits set therein for their implementation. In the present                identical to those submitted in Joined Cases C-58/95 and
case, when the period prescribed by Directive 93/42/EEC                    C-75/95 ( 1 ).
expired on 1 July 1994 , the Kingdom of Belgium had not
adopted the necessary measures .                                           (') See OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
 (') OJ No L 169 , 12 . 7 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by a Social Security
                                                                           Commissioner, by Decision of 2 September 1996, in the case
Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Commission of                    of Mrs Vera A. Partridge against the Adjudication
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                                                              Officer
                                  Belgium                                                            ( Case C-297/96 )
                            Case C-295 /96
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/15 )
                              ( 96/C 318 / 13 )
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       European Communities by decision of a Social Security
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 Commissioner, of 2 September 1996 , which was received at
 9 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                        the Court Registry on 1 1 September 1996 , for a preliminary
 Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier and                          ruling in the case of Mrs Vera A. Partridge against the
Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an address for               Adjudication Officer, on the following question :


title: Case C-354/06: Action brought on 25 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/6

         Action brought on 25 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-354/06)
   (2006/C 249/13)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Hottiaux, F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought
   By its action, the applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC (1), and, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which Directive 2003/35/EC had to be transposed expired on 25 June 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 156. p. 17