title: Case C-428/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen by order of that court of 28 September 2000 in the case of Merz + Co. GmbH & Co. v (1) AOK Bundesverband (2) Bundesverband der Betriebskrankenkassen (3) IKK-Bundesverband (4) Bundesverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen (5)Verband der Angestellten-Krankenkassen e.V. (6) AEV — Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen-Verband e.V. (7) Seekrankenkasse and (8) Bundesknappschaft, joined parties: (1) Federal Republic of Germany, and (2) Bundesausschuss der Ärzte und Krankenkassen

text:
C 79/10                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.3.2001
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     band der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen (5) Verband
                                                                           der Angestellten-Krankenkassen e.V. (6) AEV — Arbeiter-
                        of 12 October 2000                                 Ersatzkassen-Verband e.V. (7) Seekrankenkasse and (8) Bundes-
                                                                           knappschaft, joined parties: (1) Federal Republic of Germany,
in Case C-278/00 R: Hellenic Republic v Commission of                      and (2) Bundesausschuss der Ärzte und Krankenkassen on the
                 the European Communities (1)                              following questions:
 (Interim measures — Suspension of operation — State aid)                  1.   Must statutory sickness funds and the associations thereof
                                                                                which are subject to State supervision be regarded as
                           (2001/C 79/18)                                       undertakings or associations of undertakings within the
                                                                                meaning of Article 81 et seq. EC for the purpose of the
                                                                                joint determination of the level of uniform fixed amounts
                     (Language of the case: Greek)                              for medicinal products to which the funds’ liability is
                                                                                limited in relation to the insured persons?
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published     2.   If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,
                   in the European Court Reports)                               does determination of a fixed amount as referred to in
                                                                                the first question constitute an agreement which restricts
In Case C-278/00 R: Hellenic Republic (Agents: I. Chalkias and                  competition within the meaning of Article 81(1) EC?
C. Tsiavou) v Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: J. Flett and D. Triantafyllou) — application for
                                                                           3.   Do Articles 81 and 86 EC preclude legislation giving
suspension of operation, primarily, of Commission Decision
                                                                                social security funds and associations thereof the power
E(2000) 686 final of 1 March 2000 relating to the aid
                                                                                to determine fixed amounts of the kind referred to in the
schemes implemented by Greece in order to regulate debts of
                                                                                first question for medicinal products?
agricultural cooperatives in the years 1992 and 1994 including
aid for the reorganisation of the dairy cooperative AGNO,
alternatively of Article 2 of that decision — the President of
the Court has made an order on 12 October 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                           Action brought on 13 December 2000 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                                (Case C-455/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 79/20)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozial-                  An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
gericht Nordrhein-Westfalen by order of that court of                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 December
28 September 2000 in the case of Merz + Co. GmbH &                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Co. v (1) AOK Bundesverband (2) Bundesverband der                          represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal Service, acting as
Betriebskrankenkassen (3) IKK-Bundesverband (4) Bun-                       Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
desverband der landwirtschaftlichen Krankenkassen                          of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
(5)Verband der Angestellten-Krankenkassen e.V. (6) AEV                     Centre, Kirchberg.
— Arbeiter-Ersatzkassen-Verband e.V. (7) Seekrankenkas-
se and (8) Bundesknappschaft, joined parties: (1) Federal
Republic of Germany, and (2) Bundesausschuss der Ärzte                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        und Krankenkassen
                                                                           —    Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                          (Case C-428/00)                                       obligations under Article 9(1) to (3) of Council Directive
                                                                                90/270/EEC (1) of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety
                           (2001/C 79/19)                                       and health requirements for work with display screen
                                                                                equipment (fifth individual Directive within the meaning
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (2), inasmuch as
European Communities by order of the Landessozialgericht                        it:
Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higer Social Court of North Rhine-
Westphalia) of 28 September 2000, which was received at the                     (a)   does not ensure regular eye and eyesight tests for all
Court Registry on 20 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling                          workers who use display screen equipment within
in the case of (1) AOK Bundesverband (2) Bundesverband der                            the meaning of Article 2(c) of the abovementioned
Betriebskrankenkassen (3) IKK-Bundesverband (4) Bundesver-                            directive;


title: Case C-382/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 25 August 2008 — Michael Neukirchinger v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich (Austria) lodged on 25 August 2008 — Michael Neukirchinger v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen
   (Case C-382/08)
   (2008/C 285/42)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes Oberösterreich
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Michael Neukirchinger

      Defendant: Bezirkshauptmannschaft Grieskirchen
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 49 et seq. of the Treaty establishing the European Community to be interpreted as precluding a national provision which requires a person who is established in another Member State, and who is licensed, pursuant to the legal order of that Member State, to operate commercial balloon flights, to have a registered office or place of residence in Austria in order to be able to operate balloon flights in that Member State (Paragraph 106 of the Luftfahrtgesetz (Austrian Law on Aviation) BGBl No 253/1957, last amended by BGBl I No 83/2008)?

               2.

               Is Article 49 et seq. of the Treaty establishing the European Community to be interpreted as precluding a national provision under which the holder of a licence to operate commercial balloon flights who is established in another Member State and recognised under the legal order of that Member State is required to obtain a further licence for the operation of balloon flights in another Member State, where the test requirements in respect of that licence prove to be identical in substance to those of the licence already granted in the country of origin, albeit with the additional proviso that the applicant for the licence must have his registered office or place of residence within the territory of the country (in this case, in Austria)?

               3.

               Are the provisions of Paragraph 102, in conjunction with Paragraphs 104 and 106, of the Austrian Luftfahrtgesetz incompatible with Article 49 EC if a licence-holder established in Germany is prosecuted in Austria under administrative criminal law for operating pursuant to his licence and, as a result, his access to the market is hindered, the background hereto being that under Paragraph 106(1) of the Luftfahrtgesetz it is impossible to obtain such a licence or an operating licence (‘Betriebsaufnahmebewilligung’) without establishing a separate place of business and/or residence, and without re-registering in Austria a hot-air balloon that is already registered in Germany?


title: Case C-135/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber of the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, by order of that court of 12 November 1999 in the case of ANAS — Ente Nazionale per le Strade and Lauro Cantieri Valsesia SpA against Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni

text:
24.6.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 176/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — Since that charge is due even where there is no registration
                                                                             to be made in practice and at the same rate regardless of
                                                                             the number of registrations to be made, the basis for its
In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC (ex                 payment is not the performance of a single operation
Article 189 of the EC Treaty), directives are binding, as to the             (registration of a single instrument) but a series of activities
result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which they                  (involved in keeping the register of companies) intended
are addressed. Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC (ex                to enable companies to register instruments whose regis-
Article 5 of the EC Treaty), Member States are to take all                   tration is required by the Civil Code following registration
appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure               of the constituent instrument;
fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or
resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Com-             — Moreover, whilst, on the one hand, the amount of the
munity.                                                                      charge appears to be determined on a flat-rate basis
                                                                             according to criteria of reasonableness in the light of its
                                                                             low level (between ITL 750 000 and ITL 90 000 according
It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt               to the type of operation), on the other hand, considering
measures to comply with the abovementioned directives by                     that registry fees are also payable and given the basis for
drawing up the required waste management plans.                              its payment, it is certainly determined with reference to
                                                                             the cost not of a single registration (of which there may be
                                                                             none) but of keeping the register of companies in general.
The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
has not adopted the appropriate measures for full implemen-
tation of the directives at issue in Greek law, nor has it notified     (1) OJ, English Special Edition, 1969, (II), p. 412.
such measures to the Commission.                                        (2) [1993] ECR I-1915.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di                of the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, by
Trento (District Court of Trento) — Insolvency Section                  order of that court of 12 November 1999 in the case of
— by order of that court of 8 February 2000 in the case                 ANAS — Ente Nazionale per le Strade and Lauro Cantieri
       of Ministry of Finance v Merkur Chemical s.r.l.                   Valsesia SpA against Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni
                        (Case C-134/00)                                                           (Case C-135/00)
                        (2000/C 176/15)                                                           (2000/C 176/16)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di                    European Communities by order of the Fourth Chamber of
Trento (District Court of Trento) — Insolvency Section — of             the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, of
8 February 2000, which was received at the Court Registry on            12 November 1999, received at the Court Registry on 10 April
10 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministry         2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ANAS — Ente
of Finance v Merkur Chemical s.r.l. on the following question:          Nazionale per le Strade and Lauro Cantieri Valsesia SpA against
                                                                        Consorzio Cooperative Costruzioni on the following questions:
In an action brought by a capital company before the Italian            (1) In calls for tenders for public works contracts, do clauses
courts for reimbursement of the annual administrative charge                 excluding undertakings which have not submitted with
paid from 1985 to 1992 pursuant to laws incompatible with                    their tenders explanations concerning components of the
Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) (Joined Cases                 price indicated, amounting to at least 75 % of the figure
C-71/91 and C-178/91 Ponente Carni v Ministry of Finance                     specified in the tender conditions, represent an obstacle to
and Cispadana Costruzioni v Ministry of Finance) (2), is the                 the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37 (1)?
provision in Article 11(1) of Law No 448 of 23.12.1998
introducing the flat-rate charge retrospectively (in amounts            (2) Does the establishment of a mechanism for determining
varying between ITL 750 000 and ITL 90 000 according to                      the threshold indicative of irregularity, below which the
the type of company), for the entry in the register of companies,            validity of tenders falls to be verified, on the basis of an ad
pursuant to the Civil Code, of company instruments other                     hoc criterion and an arithmetical mean, automatically so
than the constituent instrument compatible with Article 10 of                that undertakings are unable to ascertain the threshold in
that directive and with the interpretation of it by the Court of             advance, represent an obstacle to the application of Article
Justice (Ponente Carni), given that:                                         30(4) of Directive 93/37?
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
(3) Does the fact that the exchange of views is to take place at        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
     an earlier stage, without the undertaking which has                Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
     allegedly submitted an irregular tender being assured of an        (Crown Office), by order of that court of 31 March 2000,
     opportunity to state its reasons, after the opening of the         in the cases of The Queen against 1) The Monopolies and
     envelopes and before the adoption of the measure exclud-           Mergers Commission 2) Secretary of State for Trade and
     ing it, represent an obstacle to the application of Article        Industry, Ex parte: Milk Marque Ltd and The Queen
     30(4) of Directive 93/37?                                          against 1) The Competition Commission 2) Secretary of
                                                                        State for Trade and Industry 3) Director General of Fair
(4) Does a provision under which the contracting authority                       Trading, Ex Parte: National Farmers’ Union
     may take account of explanations relating solely to the
     economy of the construction method or the technical                                         (Case C-137/00)
     solutions adopted or the exceptionally favourable con-
     ditions available to the tenderer represent an obstacle to
     the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?                                        (2000/C 176/18)
(5) Does the [exclusion] of explanations relating exclusively to        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     items for which minimum values have been established by            European Communities by an order of the High Court of
     administrative provisions or can be inferred from official         Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
     lists represent an obstacle to the application of Article          Office) of 31 March 2000, which was received at the Court
     30(4) of Directive 93/37?                                          Registry on 11 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                        of The Queen against 1) The Monopolies and Mergers
                                                                        Commission 2) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex
(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the          parte: Milk Marque Ltd and The Queen against 1) The
    coordination of procedures for the award of public works            Competition Commission 2) Secretary of State for Trade and
    contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54).                            Industry 3) Director General of Fair Trading, Ex parte: National
                                                                        Farmers’ Union, on the following questions:
                                                                        1. Are Articles 32 to 38 (ex Articles 38 to 46) EC, Council
                                                                            Regulation 26/62/EEC (1) and Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 804/68 (2), as amended, to be interpreted as precluding
                                                                            a Member State from applying national laws such as the
                                                                            Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1998 to
                                                                            the manner in which producers of milk choose to organise
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kuopion                         themselves into co-operatives and conduct themselves in
Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 22 March 2000                     regard to the sale and processing of their milk:
               in the case of Rolf Dieter Danner
                                                                            (a) in all circumstances; or
                         (Case C-136/00)
                                                                            (b) where the intended or actual effect is to deprive such
                         (2000/C 176/17)                                        producers of the ability to increase the price obtained
                                                                                for their milk; or
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            (c) where the intended or actual effect is to reduce
European Communities by an order of the Kuopion Hallinto-
                                                                                the price that producers obtain for their milk in
oikeus (Administrative Court, Kuopio), Finland, of 22 March
                                                                                circumstances where that price is already below the
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April
                                                                                target price fixed pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Rolf Dieter
                                                                                804/68; or
Danner on the following question:
                                                                            (d) in a way which is not consistent with any one or more
Is the restriction described above of the right to deduct for                   of the following:
tax purposes pension insurance contributions payable from
Finland to a foreign institution, laid down in the first sentence
of Paragraph 96(9) of the Tuloverolaki (Income Tax Law),                        (i) the objectives set out in Article 33 EC (ex Article
contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty referred to in the appeal                     39); and/or
(now Article 49 EC) or to the other articles referred to in the
appeal (Articles 6, 60, 73b, 73d and 92 of the EC Treaty) or                    (ii) the policy, aims or functioning of the common
the corresponding present articles (Articles 12, 50, 56, 58 and                       organisation of the market in milk and milk
87 EC)?                                                                               products; and/or
                                                                                (iii) the policy of Article 36 EC (ex Article 42) and
                                                                                Regulation 26?


title: Case T-335/06: Action brought on 22 November 2006 — Italy v Commission

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/79

         Action brought on 22 November 2006 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-335/06)
   (2006/C 326/160)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Commission has failed to act in that, after being formally called upon to act, in accordance with Article 232 EC, it unlawfully omitted to adopt exceptional measures to support the Italian market in poultrymeat, pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation No 2777/75, as regards the chicks that were destroyed for lack of battery brooder pens in the areas affected by avian influenza and subject to veterinary measures restricting free circulation in the period from December 1999 to September 2003;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all fees and costs entailed by the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Italian Government has brought an action for failure to act before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on account of the failure of the European Commission to adopt exceptional measures to support the Italian market in poultrymeat.
   In support of its action, the Italian Government claims:

               (1)

               breach of the principle of non-discrimination between Community producers, laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC, in that, after Italy had been granted exceptional measures in support only of the market in eggs, analogous measures for the market in poultrymeat were refused, with the result that Italian poultry producers suffered discrimination as compared with Dutch poultry producers, contrary to the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) of the EC Treaty;

               (2)

               misuse of power and manifest error of assessment on the part of the Commission which, by refusing to adopt exceptional measures to support the market also in respect of the day-old chicks destroyed for lack of battery brooder pens, exceeded the powers conferred on it by the basic regulation on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat and committed an error of assessment regarding the situation of the Italian poultry market, as well as regarding the information available to it concerning the production structure;

               (3)

               infringement and misinterpretation of Article 14 of Regulation No 2777/75 in that the unjustified refusal of the Commission to grant exceptional measures to support the market in respect of the day-old chicks destroyed for lack of battery brooder pens was based on an incorrect interpretation of Article 14 of Regulation No 2777/75;

               (4)

               breach of the principles of sound administration, impartiality, fairness and transparency.


C 124/16                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        24.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            represented by Dr Ulrich Wölker, Commission Legal Adviser,
                                                                           and Florence Simonetti, a national civil servant available to the
—     Breach of the Staff Regulations and of the Conditions                Commission Legal Service under an exchange scheme, with an
      of Employment of Other Servants of the European                      address for service in Luxembourg.
      Communities
      According to Article 30 of Council Decision 2002/                    The Commission claims that the Court should:
      187/JHA of 28 February 2002 establishing Eurojust to
      strengthen the fight against serious forms of crime ( 1),            1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
      Eurojust staff are to be subject to the rules and regulations              the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
      applicable to the officials and other servants of the                      provisions necessary in order to implement Council
      European Communities.                                                      Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
                                                                                85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain
      Under Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment,                          public and private projects on the environment (1) in the
      candidates are only required to have a thorough know-                      provinces of Burgenland and Salzburg, the Republic of
      ledge of one language and a satisfactory knowledge of                      Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      another.                                                                   directive;
—     Breach of the linguistic rules of Eurojust                           2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
      Article 31 of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA provides
      that the official linguistic arrangements of the Union are
      to apply to Eurojust proceedings. No provision of the                Pleas in law and main arguments
      decision expressly states that the working languages of
      Eurojust are to be English and French.                               In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                           which provides that a directive is binding as to the result to be
—     Breach of the principle of non-discrimination                        achieved upon each Member State, the Member States are
      The requirement that part of the documents to be                     obliged to comply with the time-limit for implementation laid
      submitted should be drawn up in English and, most of                 down in directives. The period for implementation laid down
      all, the requirement of excellent knowledge of English               in Article 3(1) of Directive 97/11/EC expired on 14 March
      and French amounts to clear discrimination grounds of                1999 without the Republic of Austria having adopted the
      nationality, prohibited by Article 12 EC.                            necessary provisions for the provinces of Burgenland and
                                                                           Salzburg.
( 1) OJ 2002 L 63, p. 1.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
Action brought on 9 April 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                                Removal from the register of Case C-107/02 ( 1)
                              Austria
                                                                                (2003/C 124/27)
                          (Case C-164/03)
                          (2003/C 124/26)                                  By order of 4 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                           of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                           register of Case C-107/02: Commission of the European
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before               Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        (1 ) OJ C 191 of 10.08.2002.


title: Case T-36/16: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Enercon v EUIPO — Gamesa Eólica (Blended shades of green) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU trade mark consisting of blended shades of green — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Enercon v EUIPO — Gamesa Eólica (Blended shades of green)
   (Case T-36/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU trade mark consisting of blended shades of green - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 195/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: S. Overhage, R. Böhm and A. Silverleaf, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Gamesa Eólica, SL (Sarriguren, Spain) (represented by: A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 October 2015 (Case R 597/2015-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Gamesa Eólica and Enercon.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case T-239/17: Action brought on 25 April 2017 — Germany v Commission

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/40

         Action brought on 25 April 2017 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-239/17)
   (2017/C 195/54)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: D. Klebs and T. Henze)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Article 1 of and the annex to Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2017/264 of 14 February 2017 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) in so far as payments amounting to EUR 1 964 861,71 chargeable to the EAGF made by the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas paying agency of the Federal Republic of Germany are excluded from Union funding, and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: no wrongful calculation and presentation of interest, alleging
               an infringement of Article 31(1) in conjunction with Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 (1) in conjunction with Article 6(h) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (2) (alternatively, Article 52(1) in conjunction with Article 54(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (3) in conjunction with Article 29(f) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 (4)), in so far as the payments from the funding were excluded, although the German authorities had complied with all of the relevant rules in a timely manner, in particular they had calculated and presented interest in compliance with the applicable rules in Table III in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 (in the version of Regulation (EC) No 1233/2007 (5)).

               2.

               Second plea in law: failure to state reasons for the decision, alleging
               an infringement of Article 296(2) TFEU, since the Commission failed to sufficiently and coherently state the reasons why, in accordance with Article 31(1) in conjunction with Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 in conjunction with Article 6(h) of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 in the version of Regulation (EC) No 1233/2007, an obligation is imposed on the Member States to set out recoveries and corresponding interest in a single column and also prior to the determination of interest already relating to the period from 2006 to 2008 in the context of irregularities relating to export refunds in Table III in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 in the version of Regulation (EC) No 1233/2007 (although the existence of a claim for interest per se is not disputed). In addition, the Commission failed to sufficiently and coherently state the reasons why there is an infringement of the obligation to carry out key controls.

               3.

               Third plea in law: deadline under Article 31(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, alleging
               an infringement of Article 31(4)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 52(4)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 in so far as the Commission failed effectively to communicate the complaints (calculation and presentation of interest as well as absence of key controls), on which it based the exclusion of the expenditure, in writing, within 24 months following the date when the expenditure was incurred.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: excessive duration of proceedings, alleging
               an infringement of Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 885/2006, Article 52 of Regulation (EC) No 1306/2013 and Article 34 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 in conjunction with the general legal principle that administrative proceedings should be conducted within a reasonable time, and infringement of the rights of the defence, since the proceedings before the Commission lasted too long.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: infringement of the principle of proportionality, alleging
               an infringement of Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 and Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 as well as of the principle of proportionality, since the Commission, by imposing a flat-rate correction of 5 %, the Commission failed to take appropriate account of the nature and the scope of the supposed infringement and ignored the fact that not only was no financial damage actually caused to the Union, but that there was never even a real danger that such damage would occur and the applicant committed only a minor fault (if any). In addition, the Commission infringed the principle of proportionality, in so far as it made a correction to the annual balance for 2010 without any apparent relation to the fiscal years 2006 to 2008 at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 201, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 90).

      (3)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).

      (4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 908/2014 of 6 August 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to paying agencies and other bodies, financial management, clearance of accounts, rules on checks, securities and transparency (OJ 2014 L 255, p. 59).

      (5)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1233/2007 of 22 October 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 885/2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the accreditation of paying agencies and other bodies and the clearance of the accounts of the EAGF and of the EAFRD (OJ 2007 L 279, p. 10).


title: Case C-447/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2016 — Roland Becker v Hainan Airlines Co. Ltd.

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 11 August 2016 — Roland Becker v Hainan Airlines Co. Ltd.
   (Case C-447/16)
   (2016/C 428/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Roland Becker

      Defendant: Hainan Airlines Co. Ltd

      Question referred

   Where passengers are transported on two flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airports, is the place of departure of the first leg of the journey to be regarded as being the place where the services were provided under the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, (1) even when the claim advanced in the application for compensation under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (2) is based on a disruption to the second leg of the journey and the action is brought against the party to the contract of carriage, which, although it was the operating air carrier for the second flight, was not the operating air carrier for the first flight?

      (1)  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).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case T-300/11: Order of the General Court of 18 January 2012 — Otto v OHIM — Nalsani (TOTTO)

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/26

         Order of the General Court of 18 January 2012 — Otto v OHIM — Nalsani (TOTTO)
   (Case T-300/11) (1)

   2012/C 80/46
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


title: Case C-358/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) lodged on 5 August 2008 — Aventis Pasteur SA v OB (by his mother and litigation friend) (FC)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from House of Lords (United Kingdom) lodged on 5 August 2008 — Aventis Pasteur SA v OB (by his mother and litigation friend) (FC)
   (Case C-358/08)
   (2008/C 260/19)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   House of Lords
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aventis Pasteur SA

      Defendant: OB
   Question referred
   Is it consistent with the European Product Liability Directive (1) for the laws of a Member State to allow substitution of a new defendant to a claim brought under the Directive after the 10 year period for enforcing rights under Article 11 of the Directive has expired in circumstances where the only person named as a defendant in proceedings instituted during the 10 year period was someone who does not fall within Article 3 of the Directive?

      (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 L 210, p. 29).


               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/19

         Assignment of Mr Wahl and Mr Prek to Chambers
   (2006/C 261/36)
   At its plenary meeting on 9 October 2006, the Court of First Instance decided, following the taking up of their duties by Mr Wahl and Mr Prek, to amend as follows the decision of the plenary meeting of 5 July 2006 on the assignment of Judges to Chambers:
   For the period from 9 October 2006 to 31 August 2007, the following are assigned:

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

                           Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Cooke, Mr García-Valdecasas, Ms Labucka and Mr Prek, Judges;

                  to the First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Mr Cooke, President of the Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas, Ms Labucka and Mr Prek, Judges;

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

                           Mr Legal, President of the Chamber, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Vadapalas, Mr Moavero Milanesi and Mr Wahl, Judges;

                  to the Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

                           Mr Legal, President of the Chamber

                                       a)

                                       Mr Vadapalas and Mr Wahl, Judges

                                       b)

                                       Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka and Mr Moavero Milanesi, Judges


               19.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/20

         Action brought on 4 October 2013 by the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-21/13)
   (2013/C 372/09)
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) was brought before the EFTA Court on 4 October 2013 by Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA), represented by Ami Barav, Barrister of the Bar of England and Wales and Avocat of the Paris Bar, Peter Dyrberg, Advokat of the Danish Bar and Damien Reymond, Avocat of the Paris Bar, c/o Olswang, 326 Avenue Louise, bte 26, 1050 Brussels, Belgium.
   The applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

               (i)

               annul the contested decision in as far as it approves the inclusion of the ‘non-prime’ matches of the FIFA World CupTM on the Norwegian events’ list;

               (ii)

               order ESA to pay its own costs and the costs incurred by FIFA in connection with these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The applicant, the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA), seeks the annulment of EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) decision No 309/13/COL of 16 July 2013 under Article 14(2) of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) (the contested decision), in so far as it approves the inclusion on the Norwegian events’ list, drawn up pursuant to Article 14(1), of all the matches played within the framework of the final stage of the FIFA World CupTM, especially the matches other than the final, the semi-finals and the matches played by the Norwegian team (the ‘non-prime’ matches).

               —

               On 12 July and 5 August 2013, FIFA requested a communication of the contested decision from ESA. In response, ESA provided them with a link to the on-line database in which the decision was published.

               —

               FIFA is the organiser and the sole original rights’ holder of the FIFA World CupTM, which figures on the Norwegian list as approved by ESA. It considers that, in approving the inclusion on that list of the entire FIFA World CupTM, in particular the ‘non-prime’ matches played within the framework of that competition, ESA has committed a manifest error and disregarded EEA law and the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice (SCA).

         The applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has:

               —

               infringed Article 16 SCA; and

               —

               infringed Articles 14(2) of the AVMSD and 5(2)(d) SCA in failing to adequately verify the compatibility of the Norwegian measures with EEA law.


title: Action brought on 19 October 1998 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (Case C-376/98)

text:
C 378/12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.12.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo                       administrative provisions of the Member States
Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of                 relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco
that court of 23 September 1998, in the case of MinisteÂrio             products;
     Publico and Fazenda PuÂblica v. Epson Europe BV
                       (Case C-375/98)                              2. Order the defendants to pay the costs.
                        (98/C 378/21)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    Ð Lack of authority to act under Article 100a of the EC
European Communities by a judgment of the Second
                                                                        Treaty: Articles 100 and 100a of the EC Treaty are
Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
                                                                        not available as a legal basis for approximation
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 23 September 1998,
                                                                        measures whose normative content does not contribute
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 October
                                                                        specifically and substantially to improving the
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of MinisteÂrio
                                                                        functioning of the internal market. According to its
Publico and Fazenda PuÂblica v. Epson Europe BV on the
                                                                        preamble, the directive is not directed at internal
following questions:
                                                                        market freedom for tobacco products but only at that
                                                                        of the advertising materials themselves and the
                                                                        freedom to provide services of suppliers in the
Must Article 5(4) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1)
                                                                        advertising sector. Because of the purely national
of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation
                                                                        character of tobacco advertising, there are however Ð
applicable in the case of parent companies and
                                                                        in the absence of cross-frontier movement Ð no
subsidiaries of different Member States, where it fixes the
                                                                        barriers to trade at all for most advertising materials.
exceptional limits of 15 % and 10 % for Portugal, be
                                                                        Even in the only sector of tobacco advertising in
interpreted to the effect that such limits refer only to the
                                                                        which there are the beginnings of such movement
levying of imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas
                                                                        (print media), none of the periodicals achieves a
colectivas' (in Portugal)?
                                                                        market position in another Member State which could
                                                                        be described as appreciable according to the criteria of
                                                                        Community competition law. Finally, the directive is in
Or does it extend to any tax on the income from shares,
                                                                        fact inappropriate for achieving the internal market
levied on dividends, regardless of the legislative instrument
                                                                        within the meaning of the second paragraph of
which provides for it?'
                                                                        Article 7(a) of the EC Treaty simply because it
                                                                        proposes to remove alleged hindrances by prohibiting
(1) OJ L 225, 20.8.1990, p. 6.                                          the economic activity concerned, which can only be
                                                                        the basis of trade between States.
                                                                        Furthermore, the directive has the effect of restricting
                                                                        competition outside the tobacco sector, in that it also
                                                                        covers advertising for diversification products which
                                                                        are marketed under brands which were originally used
Action brought on 19 October 1998 by the Federal
                                                                        for tobacco products only (umbrella brands').
Republic of Germany against the European Parliament
          and the Council of the European Union
                       (Case C-376/98)                                  In reality, the clear main objective of the contested
                                                                        directive is the protection of health, as also follows in
                        (98/C 378/22)                                   particular from its legislative history. Under Article
                                                                        129(4) of the EC Treaty, however, the Council is
                                                                        prohibited from adopting any harmonisation of the
An action against the European Parliament and the                       laws and regulations of the Member States for the
Council of the European Union was brought before                        achievement of that objective, at least as principal
the Court of Justice of the European Communities                        objective.
on 19 October 1998 by the Federal Republic of
Germany, represented by Claus-Dieter Quassowski,                    Ð Breach of Articles 57(2) and 66 of the EC Treaty:
Regierungsdirektor in the Federal Ministry of Economic                  Since the contested directive does not make easier' but
Affairs, D-53107 Bonn, and Jochim Sedemund,                             forbids the activities of the tobacco advertising sector,
Rechtsanwalt, of Charlottenstraûe 65, D-10117 Berlin.                   both nationally and Ð in so far as it exists Ð in a
                                                                        cross-frontier context, those articles are also manifestly
                                                                        ruled out as legal bases.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð (In the alternative) Breach of the principle of
1. Annul Directive 98/43/EC (1) of the European                         proportionality (third paragraph of Article 3(b) of the
    Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the                 EC Treaty): A directive which, like the present one,
    approximation of the laws, regulations and                          essentially only obstructs future movement of goods
 ---pagebreak--- 5.12.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 378/13
    and services in respect of products which at present do        Ð Breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty: The preamble
    not yet even cross frontiers to an appreciable extent is           to the contested directive contains no statement, or no
    manifestly not necessary for purposes of the internal              adequate statement, of reasons for essential normative
    market.                                                            provisions. It obscures the real main purpose of the
                                                                       directive (protection of health) and does not express
                                                                       the true considerations and motives of the Community
Ð (In the alternative) Breach of the principle of                      institutions which adopted it. It contains no
    subsidiarity: Most tobacco advertising products                    indications whatever as to the observance of
    (posters etc.) are only used nationally and perceived              proportionality and subsidiarity.
    locally, and the few tobacco advertising products
    which are also exported (print media) are not subject
    to any appreciable hindrances in the Member States             (1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 9.
    which have prohibitions of tobacco advertising. With
    regard to the internal market there is therefore no
    need for intervention by the Community legislature.
    Since after the directive has been transposed the
    internal market for tobacco advertising products and
    tobacco advertising services' which currently exists at
                                                                   Action brought on 19 October 1998 by Kingdom of the
    least embryonically will be deprived of its legal
                                                                   Netherlands against European Parliament and Council of
    foundation and thereby abolished completely,
                                                                                the European Union
    regulation by the Member States is also better' with
    regard to the Treaty objective of the internal market.                                (Case C-377/98)
                                                                                (98/C 378/23)
Ð Infringement of fundamental rights:
                                                                   An action against the European Parliament and the
    Ð Commercial advertising (Article 10 of the
                                                                   Council of the European Union was brought before the
        European Convention on Human Rights): If Ð as
                                                                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on
        in the present case Ð the freedom of tobacco
                                                                   19 October 1998 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
        manufacturers and the tobacco advertising
                                                                   represented by Marc Fierstra and Ivo van der Steen,
        industry to express their opinion on tobacco
        consumption is severely restricted by a measure            Assistant Legal Advisers in the Ministry of Foreign
                                                                   Affairs, The Hague, acting as Agents.
        which is neither appropriate nor necessary for
        achieving the legislative aim (improvement of the
        internal market), Article 10 of the Convention is          The applicant claims that the Court should:
        violated. With respect also to the purported
        subsidiary aim of the directive, namely the
        protection of health, a total prohibition of tobacco       1. declare Directive 98/44/EC of the               European
        advertising cannot be justified in view of freedom             Parliament and of the Council (1) void; and
        of expression.
                                                                   2. order the defendant to pay the costs.
    Ð Right to property and freedom to carry on an
        occupation: The prohibition of tobacco advertising
        is a serious interference with the right to property       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
        and freedom to carry on an occupation of
        producers of tobacco advertising products and
        providers of tobacco advertising services, going as        Ð Incorrect legal basis: Directive 98/44/EC is not
        far as forced abandonment of the entire business in            primarily directed towards the harmonisation of
        the case of specialist undertakings. Also affected,            national patent law principles and moreover goes
        however, is the right to property and freedom to               further than such harmonisation by creating new
        carry on an occupation of tobacco manufacturers,               patent rights of Community origin. Specifically, a
        whose      essential   instrument    of    aggressive          patent is created over living products of
        competition is taken away from them by the                     biotechnological processes and the Directive also
        prohibition of advertising.                                    regulates the scope of that patent protection in a
                                                                       manner which differs from current patent law.
                                                                       Recital 15 in the preamble to the Directive is wrong in
Ð Breach of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty: A                     stating that no prohibition exists in national patent
    restriction of the free movement of goods with the                 law or the European Patent Convention which
    political aim of protection of health can be justified             precludes a priori the patentability of biological
    only if the need for that restriction has been                     matter; in any event, that statement is not valid for the
    scientifically proved. There is no such proof in the               Netherlands.
    present case, nor is it even attempted in the grounds of
    the contested directive. Nor has the Community
    legislature demonstrated that less drastic measures                Article 100a of the EC Treaty should therefore not
    would not be equally suitable for achieving the health             have been chosen as the legal basis but rather Ð if
    policy objective.                                                  it were really thought necessary to regulate


title: Case C-602/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Călărași (Romania) lodged on 21 December 2010 — SC Volksbank România SA v Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor — Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Călărași (CJPC)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Călărași (Romania) lodged on 21 December 2010 — SC Volksbank România SA v Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor — Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Călărași (CJPC)
   (Case C-602/10)
   2011/C 89/13
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Călărași

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SC Volksbank România SA

      Respondent: Autoritatea Națională pentru Protecția Consumatorilor — Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Călărași (CJPC)

      Questions referred

               1.

               To what extent must Article 30(1) of Directive 2008/48 (1) be interpreted as precluding Member States from providing that national legislation transposing the Directive is also to apply to agreements concluded before the entry into force of the national implementing provision?

               2.

               To what extent do the provisions of Article 85(2) of OUG [Ordonanță de Urgență a Guvernului (Government Emergency Order)] No 50/2010 constitute an adequate transposition of the Community provision laid down in Article 24[(1)] of Directive 2008/48, which requires the Member States to ensure that provision is made for adequate and effective out-of-court dispute resolution procedures for the settlement of disputes with consumers concerning consumer credit agreements?

               3.

               To what extent must Article 22(1) of Directive 2008/48 be interpreted as meaning that it introduces the maximum level of harmonisation in the field of consumer credit agreements, which precludes the Member States from:

                           3.1.

                           extending the scope of the provisions in Directive 2008/48 to agreements expressly excluded from the scope of the Directive (such as mortgage loan agreements or agreements concerning the right of ownership in immovable property); or

                           3.2.

                           introducing additional obligations for credit institutions as regards the types of charges they may impose or the categories of reference indices to which the variable interest rate may refer in consumer credit agreements falling within the scope of the national implementing provision?

                     If the third question is answered in the negative, to what extent must the principles of freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital in general, and Articles 56, 58 and 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in particular, be interpreted as precluding a Member State from imposing measures on credit institutions prohibiting in consumer credit agreements the application of bank charges not included in the list of permitted charges, unless such charges are defined in the legislation of the State concerned?

      (1)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66).


title: Removal from the register of C-331/96

text:
C 295/26                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27 . 9 . 97
removal from the register of Case C-58/96 : Kingdom of                           Removal from the register of C-330/96 (')
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities,                                                  ( 97/C 295/50 )
supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
                                                                        By order of 25 June 1997 the President of the Court of
(') OJ C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                        removal from the register of Case C-330/96 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
                                                                        (') OJ C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
         Removal from the register of C-2 17/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 295/47)
By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of                            Removal from the register of C-331/96 (')
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-2 17/96 : Kingdom of                                            ( 97/C 295/51 )
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities ,
supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland .                                    By order of 25 June 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
H OJ C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .                                             removal from the register of Case C-331/96 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
                                                                        (') OJ C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
          Removal from the register of C-3 96/95 (')
                            ( 97/C 295/48 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-281/94 ( 1 )
By order of 19 June 1997 the President of the Court of                                               ( 97/C 295/52 )
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-396/95 : Federal
Republic of Germany v. Commission of the European                       By order of 26 June 1997 the President of the Court of
Communities, supported by French Republic and United                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland .                         removal from the register of Case C-281/94: Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
 w OJ C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                         H OJ C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
          Removal from the register of C-l 84/95 (')
                             ( 97/C 295/49 )                                       Removal from the register of C-97/97 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 295/53 )
 By order of 24 June 1997 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
 removal from the register of Case C-l 84/95 ( reference for             By order of 1 July 1997 the President of the Court of
 a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado do lo Social No 2,               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
 Santiago do Compostela ): Mercedes Lores Guillfn v. Insti              removal from the register of Case C-97/97 ( reference for a
 tute Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la                    preliminary ruling from the Retten i Arhus ): Elly Bach v.
 Seguridad Social .                                                      Arhus Amtskommune.
 (') OJ C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .                                            (') OJ C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 25 March 1996 in Case C-137/95 P: Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Competition - Decisions of associations of undertakings - Exemption - Appraisal of the gravity of the infringements - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
  22. 6 . 96          I EN I                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 180/17
  composed of G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), President of the               2 . The appellant shall bear the costs.
  Chamber, G. F. Mancini and F. A. Schockweiler, Judges; N.
  Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
  order on 14 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as           (!) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995
  follows :
  1 . The appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.
  2 . Mr Del Plato is ordered to pay the costs of these
        proceedings.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
  0 ) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 .                                                               of 25 March 1996
                                                                       in Case C-137/95 P: Vereniging van Samenwerkende
                                                                       Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and
                                                                         Others v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
                                                                        (Appeal — Competition — Decisions of associations of
                                                                        undertakings — Exemption — Appraisal of the gravity of
                                                                             the infringements — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/35 )
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                         ( Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          of 24 April 1996
  in Case C-87/95 P: Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed
  Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori ( CNPAAP)            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
               v. Council of the European Union ( ! )                             published in the European Court Reports)
   (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 3604/93
   specifying definitions for the application of the prohibition
   ofprivileged access referred to in Article 104a ofthe Treaty         In Case C-137/95 P : Vereniging van Samenwerkende
          — Admissibility — Appeal clearly unfounded)                   Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and
                            ( 96/C 180/34 )                             Others ( represented by L. H. van Lennep and E. H. Pijnacker
                                                                        Hordijk ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of
                                                                        First Instance of the European Communities of 21 February
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                      1995 , Case T-29/92 SPO and Others v. Commission [ 1995 ]
                                                                        ECR 11-289 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, the
                                                                        other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         European Communities ( Agent: B. J. Drijber, assisted by P.
            published in the European Court Reports)                    Glazener, Avocat) — the Court, composed of G. C.
                                                                        Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
                                                                        Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
   In Case C-87/95 P : Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed                 Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
   Assistenza a favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori ( CNPAAP )          Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L.
   ( represented by Pietro Adonino, Mario Sanino, Maurizio de           Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón
   Stefano and Alberto Colabianchi ) — appeal against the               and M. Wathelet, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;
   order of the Court of First Instance of the European                 R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 25 March 1996 , the
   Communities (Third Chamber ) of 11 January 1995 in Case              operative part of which is as follows :
   T-l 16/94 Cassa Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza a
   favore degli Avvocati e Procuratori v. Council of the
   European Union [ 1995 ] ECR II- 1 , seeking to have that              1 . The appeal is dismissed.
   order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
   Council of the European Union ( Agents: Rüdiger Bandilla
   and Antonio Lucidi ) — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ),                  1 . The applicants are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay
„ composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J.                 the costs .
   G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), Judges; A. La
   Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
   order on 24 April 1996 , the operative part of which is as            (<) OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .
   follows :
    1 . The appeal is dismissed.


title: Case C-455/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Heemskerk BV, Firma Schaap v Productschap Vee en Vlees (Regulations (EC) Nos 615/98, 1254/1999 and 800/1999 — Directive 91/628/EEC — Export refunds — Protection of bovine animals during transport — Power of an administrative authority of a Member State to find, contrary to the declaration of the official veterinarian, that the means of transport of the animals does not comply with Community legislation — Jurisdiction of national courts of Member States — Examination of their own motion of pleas in law derived from Community law — National rule prohibiting reformatio in pejus )

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Heemskerk BV, Firma Schaap v Productschap Vee en Vlees
   (Case C-455/06) (1)

   (Regulations (EC) Nos 615/98, 1254/1999 and 800/1999 - Directive 91/628/EEC - Export refunds - Protection of bovine animals during transport - Power of an administrative authority of a Member State to find, contrary to the declaration of the official veterinarian, that the means of transport of the animals does not comply with Community legislation - Jurisdiction of national courts of Member States - Examination of their own motion of pleas in law derived from Community law - National rule prohibiting reformatio in pejus)
   (2009/C 69/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Heemskerk BV, Firma Schaap

      Defendant: Productschap Vee en Vlees
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 2(2) of Commission Regulation No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19), of Article 33(9) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organization of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21), of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 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) — Power of an administrative authority of a Member State to find, contrary to the declaration of the official veterinarian, that the means of transport is not in accordance with Community provisions — Assessment based on criteria of the Member State concerned or of the Member State in which the vessel transporting the animals is registered — Powers of the courts of the Member States.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, and, in particular, Articles 1 and 5(3) and (7) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a national authority with competence for export refunds is empowered to decide that a transport of animals was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, although, under Article 2(3) of that regulation, the official veterinarian had certified that that transport complied with the provisions of that directive. In order to reach that conclusion, that authority must rely on objective elements relating to the welfare of the animals such as to call into question the documents presented by the exporter, it being for the latter to show, in that case, that the elements relied on by the competent authority for its finding of non-compliance with Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, are irrelevant.

               2.

               Where a vessel has been authorised for the transport of animals in respect of a certain surface area by the Member State of registration of the vessel, the competent authority of the Member State of export must take that authorisation as a basis for assessing whether Community legislation on the welfare of animals during transport has been complied with.

               3.

               The notion of ‘compliance with the provisions established in Community legislation concerning animal welfare’ referred to in Article 33(9) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal must be interpreted as meaning that, where it is established that the Community requirements relating to loading density laid down in Chapter VI, point 47(B) of the Annex to Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, were not complied with during the transport of the animals, it is necessary, in principle, to make a finding of non-compliance with those provisions in respect of all the live animals transported.

               4.

               Community law does not require national courts to apply, of their own motion, a provision of Community law where such application would lead them to deny the principle, enshrined in the relevant national law, of the prohibition of reformatio in pejus.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-485/15: Action brought on 24 August 2015 — Alsharghawi v Council

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/41

         Action brought on 24 August 2015 — Alsharghawi v Council
   (Case T-485/15)
   (2015/C 337/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi (Johannesburg, South Africa) (represented by: É. Moutet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2015/1333/CFSP of 31 July 2015 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya, and repealing Decision 2011/137/CFSP, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1323 of 31 July 2015 implementing Article 16(2) of Regulation (EU) No 204/2011 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Libya;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council does not have the competence to list the applicant on the list of persons subject to restrictive measures, his name being mentioned neither in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1970 (2011) and 1973 (2011) nor in its amending Resolutions 2213 (2015) and 2214 (2015).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, divided into two parts:

                           —

                           breach of the obligation to state reasons;

                           —

                           breach of the applicant’s rights of the defence on account of the lack of adversary proceedings.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of rules of law relating to the application of the EU Treaties, divided into two parts:

                           —

                           breach of the presumption of innocence;

                           —

                           breach of fundamental rights, to the extent that, by imposing restrictive measures on the applicant, the Council undermined his freedom to come and go and his property rights.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested acts are without merit, to the extent that there is no solid factual basis establishing their relevance.


title: Case T-377/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Olivar Del Desierto (OLEOSPA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark OLEOSPA — Earlier Benelux word marks SPA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2015 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Olivar Del Desierto (OLEOSPA)
   (Case T-377/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark OLEOSPA - Earlier Benelux word marks SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 127/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Olivar Del Desierto, SL (Almería, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 June 2012 (Case R 135/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and Olivar Del Desierto, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 22 June 2012 (Case R 135/2011-4), in so far as it dismisses the opposition in respect of cosmetic products, falling within Class 3 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended;

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 27 April 1995 in Case T-96/92: Comité Central d'Entreprise de la Société Générale des Grandes Sources and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 - Decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Trade unions and works councils - Sufficient interest giving the recognized representatives of the employees the right to submit their observations, upon application, in the administrative procedure - Acts of direct and individual concern to them)

text:
24 . 6 . 95           | EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 159/21
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 27 April 1995                                                          of 27 April 1995
in Case T-96/92 : Comité Central d'Entreprise de la Société               in Case T-12/93 : Comité Central d'Entreprise de la Société
Générale des Grandes Sources and Others v. Commission of                  Anonyme Vittel and Others v. Commission of the European
                 the European Communities ( ] )                                                     Communities (*)
(Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision                     (Competition — Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 — Decision
declaring a concentration compatible with the common                      declaring a concentration compatible with the common
market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Trade                     market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Trade
unions and works councils — Sufficient interest giving the                unions and works councils — Act of direct and individual
recognized representatives of the employees the right to                  concern to them — Sufficient interest giving the recognized
submit their observations, upon application, in the                       representatives of the employees the right to submit their
administrative procedure — Acts of direct and individual                  observations, upon application, in the administrative
                         concern to them)                                                                procedure)
                            ( 95/C 159/44 )                                                           ( 95/C 159/45 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T- 1 2/9 3 : Comité Central d'Entreprise de la Société
                                                                          Anonyme Vittel, based in Vittel, France, Comité
                                                                          d'Etablissement de Pierval, based in Vittel, and Fédération
In Case T-96/92 : Comité Central d'Entreprise de la Société               Générale Agroalimentaire , based in Paris, all represented by
Générale des Grandes Sources, based in Paris, Comité                      François Nativi, Hélène Rousseau and Françoise
d'Etablissement de la Source Perrier, Syndicat CGT                        Bienayme-Galaz, of the Paris Bar, assisted by Aloyse May, of
( Confédération Générale du Travail ) de la Source Perrier,               the Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in
and Comité de Groupe Perrier, all based in Vergèze, France,               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
represented by Jean Méloux, of the Montpellier Bar, during                Grand-Rue, supported by Comité Central d'Entreprise de la
the written procedure and by Hélène Masse-Dessen, of the                  Société Générale des Grandes Sources, based in Paris,
Paris Bar, during the oral procedure , with an address for                Comité d'Etablissement de la Source Perrier, Syndicat CGT
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Thomas, 77                   ( Confédération Générale du Travail ) de la Source Perrier,
Boulevard Grande-Duchesse Charlotte v . Commission of                     and Comité de Groupe Perrier, all based in Vergèze, France,
the European Communities (Agents: F. E. Gonzalez Diaz                     represented by Jean Méloux during the written procedure
and G. de Bergues ) — application for annulment of                        and by Alain Ottan during the oral procedure, both of the
Commission Decision 92/553/EEC of 22 July 1992 ( 2 )                      Montpellier Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
relating to a proceeding under Council Regulation ( EEC )                 at the Chambers of Guy Thomas , 77 Boulevard
No 4064/89 ( Case No IV/M.190 — Nestlé/Perner ( 3 )) —                    Grande-Duchesse Charlotte v. Commission of the European
the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, extended                    Communities ( Agents: F. E. Gonzalez Diaz and G. de
composition ), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P.               Bergues ) — application for annulment of Commission
M.      Barrington,     A.     Saggio,      H. Kirschner   and   A.       Decision 92/553/EEC of 22 July 1992 ( 2 ) relating to a
Kalogeropoulos , Judges , H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                 proceeding under Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89
judgment on 27 April 1995 , in which it:                                  ( Case No IV/M.190 — Nestlé/Perrier ( 3 )) — the Court of
                                                                          First Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition ),
                                                                          composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington,
                                                                          A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges, H.
1 , dismisses the application;                                            Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 April 1995 , in
                                                                          which it :
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs, including the             1 , dismisses the application;
      costs relating to the proceedings for interim
      measures .                                                          2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs, including the
                                                                                costs relating to the proceedings for interim
                                                                                measures;
(') OJ No C 322 , 9 . 12 . 1992 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 356 , 5 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .                               3,    orders the interveners to bear their own costs.
( 3 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 1 .
                                                                          (!) OJ No C 70, 12 . 3 . 1993 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No L 356 , 5 . 12 . 1992 , p . 7.
                                                                          ( 3 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 1 .