title: Case C-279/08 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands, Federal Republic of Germany (Appeal — State aid — Article 87(1) EC — Emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides — Classification of the national measure as State aid — Decision declaring aid to be compatible with the common market — Concept of selectivity — Advantage financed through State resources — Protection of the environment — Obligation to state the reasons for decision — Admissibility)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 September 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands, Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-279/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Article 87(1) EC - Emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides - Classification of the national measure as State aid - Decision declaring aid to be compatible with the common market - Concept of selectivity - Advantage financed through State resources - Protection of the environment - Obligation to state the reasons for decision - Admissibility)
   2011/C 311/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes, K. Gross and H. van Vliet, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C.M. Wissels and D.J.M. de Grave, Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, B. Klein and T. Henze, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the Kingdom of the Netherlands: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, A.-L. Vendrolini, J. Gstalter and B. Cabouat, Agents), Republic of Slovenia (represented by: V. Klemenc, Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson, S. Behzadi-Spencer, S. Ossowski and H. Walker, Agents, and by K. Bacon, Barrister)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 April 2008 in Case T-233/04 Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission, by which the Court of First Instance annulled Commission Decision C(2003) 1761 final of 24 June 2003 relating to State aid N 35/2003 concerning the emission trading scheme for nitrogen oxides notified by the Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 April 2008 in Case T-233/04 Netherlands v Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses the cross-appeals;

               3.

               Dismisses the action at first instance;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission relating to the proceedings at first instance and to bear its own costs in those proceedings.

               5.

               Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs relating to the appeal.

               6.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Republic of Slovenia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case T-376/13: Action brought on 18 July 2013 — Versorgungswerk der Zahnärztekammer Schleswig Holstein v ECB

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/48

         Action brought on 18 July 2013 — Versorgungswerk der Zahnärztekammer Schleswig Holstein v ECB
   (Case T-376/13)
   2013/C 260/86
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Versorgungswerk der Zahnärztekammer Schleswig Holstein (Kiel, Germany) (represented by: O. Hoepner, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision of 16 April 2013 in the version of the decision of 22 May 2013 (LS/MD/13/313) in so far as the request for access to Annexes A and B to the ‘Exchange Agreement dated 15. February 2012 among the Hellenic Republic and the European Central Bank and the Eurosystem NBCs listed herein’ was not granted;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs;

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the basis of the Decision is illegal
               The applicant claims that, by its Decision ECB/2011/6, (1) the ECB materially extended the scope of the refusal grounds set out in Article 4(1)(a) of Decision ECB/2004/3 (2) without sufficient authorisation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of essential procedural requirements
               In this plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes essential procedural requirements. In that connection, the applicant states that, in the light of Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the requirements of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296(2) TFEU are set high and that the recitals in the preamble to the contested decision of the defendant do not satisfy the requirements laid down by the European Court of Justice.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of substantive law
               In this plea, the applicant alleges breach of substantive law, since, as a result of its inadequate statement of reasons, the contested decision infringes the applicant’s right to access to documents pursuant to Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 15(3) TFEU. Moreover, the refusal of access is disproportionate.

      (1)  2011/342/EU: Decision of the European Central Bank of 9 May 2011 amending Decision ECB/2004/3 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2011/6) (OJ 2011 L 158, p. 37).

      (2)  2004/258/EC: Decision of the European Central Bank of 4 March 2004 on public access to European Central Bank documents (ECB/2004/3) (OJ 2004 L 80, p. 42).


title: Case C-323/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) of 5 July 2012 — E.On Energy Trading SE v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București — Serviciul de administrare a contribuabililor nerezidenți

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) of 5 July 2012 — E.On Energy Trading SE v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București — Serviciul de administrare a contribuabililor nerezidenți
   (Case C-323/12)
   2012/C 295/31
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel București

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E.On Energy Trading SE

      Defendants: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală, Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului București — Serviciul de administrare a contribuabililor nerezidenți

      Questions referred

               1.

               May a taxable person having its principal place of business in a Member State of the European Union other than Romania, and that has identified for VAT purposes a tax representative in Romania, on the basis of the provisions of domestic law in force before Romania acceded to the European Union, be regarded as a ‘taxable person not established in the territory of the country’, within the meaning of Article 1 of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC (1) of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country?

               2.

               Does the requirement, laid down in Article 1472(1)(a) of Law No 571/2003 on the Tax Code and transposing the provisions of the Directive, that the legal person should not be identified for VAT purposes, represent a further condition in addition to those expressly provided for in Articles 3 and 4 [of the Eighth Directive] and, if so, is a further condition of this kind permitted, having regard to Article 6 of the Directive?

               3.

               Can Articles 3 and 4 [of the Eighth Directive] have direct effect, or does satisfaction of the conditions explicitly regulated by those provisions rather confer on the legal person not established in the territory of Romania, in accordance with Article 1, the right to refund of VAT, regardless of the form they are given in the national legislation?

      (1)  OJ L 331, p. 11, Special Edition, 09/vol. 1, p.34.


title: Case C-269/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa (Spain) lodged on 13 May 2016 — Elena Barba Giménez v Francisca Carrión Lozano
   (Case C-269/16)
   (2016/C 279/23)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 2 de Terrassa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elena Barba Giménez

      Defendant: Francisca Carrión Lozano

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 6(1)(d) and Article 7(2) of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) applicable to situations in which a trader’s fees are regulated by a legal provision? If so, must Directive 2005/29/EC be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that contained in Article 36 of Law 1/1996, under which the fee regime established by statute is mandatory, even though the trader fails to give information or gives misleading information concerning the calculation of the price for his services?

               2.

               Must Article 101 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that laid down in Article 36 of Law 1/1996, which makes the remuneration of lawyers who provide legal aid services, if the application is upheld, subject to a scale of fees previously approved by those lawyers, from which the authorities of the Member State may not depart?
               Does that rule satisfy the requirements of necessity and proportionality to which Article 15(3) of Directive 2006/123/EC (2) refers?

               3.

               Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding a rule such as that in Article 36 of Law 1/1996, which obliges the … [beneficiaries] of the right to legal aid, if their action succeeds and no order for costs is made, to pay the lawyer the fees determined in accordance with scales approved by a professional body amounting to more than 50 % of the annual amount of a social security benefit?

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

      (2)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).


title: Case C-111/99 P: Appeal brought on 30 March 1999 by Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH against the judgment delivered on 21 January 1999 by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 between Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH supported by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities in Cases T-2/96 and T-97/96 supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
C 160/10               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.6.1999
6. In the circumstances of this case, is the National Authority        Pleas in law and main arguments
     obliged to pay the export refunds which the undertaking
     would have applied for at the time of export and would
                                                                       Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, a
     have been payable if the sugar described as C Sugar and
                                                                       directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
     exported under C Sugar Licences had been designated as A
                                                                       each Member State to which it is addressed.
     and B quota sugar, on the grounds that:
     (a) the National Authority can retrospectively accept an          Although the prescribed time-limit expired on 31 December
          export declaration under Article 3 of Commission             1996, the Portuguese Republic has still not submitted to the
          Regulation (EEC) No. 3665/87 of 27 November 1987             Commission the report on the experience gained in the light
          laying down common detailed rules for the application        of Directive 90/313/EEC, as required by Article 8 thereof.
          of the system of export refunds on agricultural prod-
          ucts (5) and the circumstances of the present case
          constitute a reason of force majeure entitling it to         (1) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
          extend the period for the furnishing of proof under
          Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC)
          No 3665/87?
          And/or on the grounds that:
     (b) a refusal to pay such export refunds would constitute
          a breach of the principles of Legitimate Expectations        Appeal brought on 30 March 1999 by Lech-Stahlwerke
          and/or Legal Certainty and/or Proportionality and/or         GmbH against the judgment delivered on 21 January 1999
          Proper Use of Powers?                                        by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Joined Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 between Neue
( 1) OJ L 177, 1.7.1981, p. 4.                                         Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH
( 2) OJ L 258, 11.9.1981, p. 16.                                       supported by the Federal Republic of Germany against
( 3) OJ L 144, 28.6.1995, p. 14.                                       the Commission of the European Communities in Cases
( 4) OJ L 262, 16.9.1981, p. 181.                                      T-2/96 and T-97/96 supported by the United Kingdom of
( 5) OJ L 351, 14.12.1987, p. 1.                                                     Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                                (Case C-111/99 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/22)
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 21 January 1999
Action brought on 26 March 1999 by the Commission                      by the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                     First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
                               Republic                                T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 between Neue Maxhütte
                                                                       Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH supported by
                                                                       the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of
                         (Case C-106/99)                               the European Communities in Joined Cases T-2/96 and
                                                                       T-97/96 supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain
                         (1999/C 160/21)                               and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities on 30 March 1999 by
                                                                       Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH, Meitingen-Herbertshofen, Germany,
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before           represented by Rainer Bierwagen of Kemmler Rapp Böhlke &
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March           Crosby, Rond Point Schuman 9, Bte 9, B-1040 Brussels.
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho, of its Legal Service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          The appellant claims that the Court should:
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre.
                                                                       — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities of 21 January 1999 in Joined
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96 Neue Maxhütte
                                                                           Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH v. Com-
— declare that, by failing to submit to the Commission within              mission of the European Communities(1) to the extent that
     the prescribed period the report provided for by Article 8            it relates to the appellant,
     of Council Decision 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the
     freedom of access to information on the environment (1),          — itself give final judgment in the case and declare null and
     the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          void, to the extent it relates to the appellant, Commission
     under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty             Decision 95/422/ECSC of 4 April 1995 concerning State
     and Article 8 of Directive 90/313/EEC,                                aid that the Freistaat Bayern intends to grant to the ECSC
                                                                           steel undertaking Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                          Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH (OJ L 253, 21.10.1995, p. 22),
 ---pagebreak--- 5.6.1999               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 160/11
— order the Commission to pay the costs of both the first               — In relation to the third plea in law (infringement of essential
    instance and the appeal proceedings,                                    procedural requirements), the Court of First Instance also
                                                                            fails to bring the facts of the case in regard to the appellant
— in the alternative, in the event that the Court declines to               under any particular legal provision.
    give final judgment, refer the case back to the Court of
    First Instance and reserve costs.
                                                                        — The Court of First Instance errs in law in its application of
                                                                            the private investor test. Contrary to its view, it follows
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             neither from the case-law, nor from the State Aid Code,
                                                                            nor from economic practice that the investor has to realise
— The Court of First Instance failed to examine the factual                 a profit in the long term.
    and legal requirements for the prohibition under Article
    4(c) of the ECSC Treaty with respect to the financial               — Procedural irregularities: The Court of First Instance failed
    compensation for the appellant, Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH.                   to rule on the application to inspect the documents to be
    The appellant did not receive or require any financial                  transmitted by the Commission to the Court of First
    assistance from public funds to carry on its business. There            Instance under Article 23 of the ECSC Statute of the Court
    is nothing in the judgment to justify the conclusion that               of Justice.
    the reasoning concerning Neue Maxhütte (NMH) also
    applies to the appellant. The payment in view was not               — Breach of the principle of proportionality: The Court of
    intended to compensate for losses but for the reduction in              First Instance failed, in the contested Decision, to deal with
    the value of the appellant’s business as a result of the                the question of the allegedly anti-competitive effects of the
    commitment vis-à-vis NMH.                                               planned compensation payment on the common market.
— The grounds for rejecting the first plea in law (legally
    incorrect classification as State aid) are defective so far as
    the appellant is concerned.                                         (1) OJ C 86, 27.3.1999, p. 15.


title: Case T-34/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Canon Europa v Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/24

         Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Canon Europa v Commission
   (Case T-34/11)
   2011/C 80/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Canon Europa NV (Amstelveen, The Netherlands), (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               Annul Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1) and in particular the subdivisions introduced under Harmonized System (‘HS’) subheading 8443 31 and the corresponding duty rates; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1) and in particular the subdivisions introduced under HS subheading 8443 31 and the corresponding duty rates.
   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant claims that the application for annulment is admissible under Article 263 TFEU since the contested measure is a regulatory act which is of direct concern to the applicant and which does not entail any further implementing measures.

               In addition, the applicant argues that the contested act is invalid because it reduces the scope of HS 2007 subheading 8443 31 by excluding Multifunctional Machines (‘MFMs’) which were previously classifiable under HS 2002 subheading 8471 60 from its scope, while the defendant may not modify the scope of HS subheadings pursuant to Article 3 of the HS Convention (1), and Article 1.2(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (2).

               Furthermore, the applicant claims that the contested act is invalid because it modifies the duty rates applicable to certain MFMs previously classifiable under HS 2002 subheadings 8471 60 and 8517 21, and thereby violates Article 9.2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2658/87.

               Finally, the contested act violates Article II of GATT 1994 (3) and the obligations undertaken by the EU in its Schedule of concessions because it imposes duties on certain MFMs for which the EU had undertaken to eliminate all customs duties.

      (1)  International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System of 14 June 1983.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).

      (3)  The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.


title: Case C-142/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret, Denmark) — Olicom A/S v Skatteministeriet (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classification in the combined nomenclature — Automatic data processing machines — Combined network/modem cards — Definition of specific function )

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret, Denmark) — Olicom A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-142/06) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification in the combined nomenclature - Automatic data processing machines - Combined network/modem cards - Definition of ‘specific function’)
   (2007/C 211/10)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Østre Landsret
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Olicom A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Østre Landsret — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation No 3009/95 of 22 December 1995 (OJ L 1995 L 319, p. 1) — Headings 8471 (automatic data-processing machines) and 8517 (telecommunication apparatus) — Network cards with double function, access to local area network and the Internet — Specific function
   Operative part of the judgment
   Combined cards designed to be inserted into portable computers must, after 1 January 1996, be classified as data-processing machines under heading 8471 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, contained in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 3009/95 of 22 December 1995.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.


title: Case C-140/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt, Austria) — Amalia Valeško v Zollamt Klagenfurt (Act of Accession to the European Union — Transitional measures — Annex XIII — Taxation — Cigarettes imported from Slovenia — Import into Austria in travellers' personal luggage — Exemption from excise duty limited to certain quantities — Possibility of maintaining until 31 December 2007 the quantitative limits applied to imports from third countries — Directive 69/169/EEC)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt, Austria) — Amalia Valeško v Zollamt Klagenfurt
   (Case C-140/05) (1)

   (Act of Accession to the European Union - Transitional measures - Annex XIII - Taxation - Cigarettes imported from Slovenia - Import into Austria in travellers' personal luggage - Exemption from excise duty limited to certain quantities - Possibility of maintaining until 31 December 2007 the quantitative limits applied to imports from third countries - Directive 69/169/EEC)
   (2006/C 294/22)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Amalia Valeško

      Defendant: Zollamt Klagenfurt
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt (Austria) — Interpretation of Articles 23 EC, 25 EC and 26 EC and of Annex XIII: List referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Slovenia; Heading 6. Taxation, paragraph 2, of the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 906) — Maintenance by the Member States during the transition period of the same quantitative limits, for cigarettes imported from Slovenia without payment of additional excise duty as those applied with regard to cigarette imports from third countries — Limitation of the quantity which may be imported by an individual who is resident on national territory that is stricter than that fixed for most third countries
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Section 6(2) of Annexe XIII to the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the treaties on which the European Union is founded is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the Republic of Austria from maintaining, on a transitional basis, its legislation containing an exemption from excise duty reduced to 25 cigarettes for cigarettes coming from Slovenia imported into the Republic of Austria in the personal luggage of travellers resident in that Member State and entering it directly via its land border or inland waters.

               2)

               Articles 23 EC, 25 EC and 26 EC must be interpreted as meaning that they do not prohibit national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the exemption from excise duty for cigarettes imported in travellers' personal luggage is limited to 25 units on entry to the Republic of Austria from certain other Member States, in particular the Republic of Slovenia, notwithstanding the fact that, following the last enlargement of the European Union, that reduced exemption no longer applies to any third country with the sole exception of the Swiss Samnauntal customs enclave, since imports of cigarettes from third countries generally benefit from an exemption for 200 units.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.06.2005.


title: Case C-460/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 39 EC — Employment in the public service — Captain and officer (chief mate) on vessels — Conferment of powers of public authority on board — Requirement that they must be nationals of the Member State whose flag the vessels are flying)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-460/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 39 EC - Employment in the public service - Captain and officer (chief mate) on vessels - Conferment of powers of public authority on board - Requirement that they must be nationals of the Member State whose flag the vessels are flying)
   2010/C 24/20
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E.-M. Mamouna, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 39 of the EC Treaty — National legislation which reserves for Greek nationals access to the posts of captain and officer (chief mate) on all commercial and fishing vessels flying the Greek flag

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that in requiring in its legislation Greek nationality for access to the posts of captain and officer (chief mate) on all vessels flying the Greek flag, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law and, in particular, under Article 39 EC.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327 of 20.12.2008


title: Case T-578/08: Action brought on 23 December 2008 — DVB Project v OHIM — Eurotel (DVB)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/44

         Action brought on 23 December 2008 — DVB Project v OHIM — Eurotel (DVB)
   (Case T-578/08)
   (2009/C 55/78)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: DVB Project (Le Grand Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eurotel SpA (Milan, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2008 in case R 1387/2007-2; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The mark ‘DVB’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 38

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the request for invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and annulled the contested decision

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that a monopoly on the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity would seriously impair the business activities of traders in the field of telecommunication; Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to analyse the merits of the issue of acquired distinctiveness raised by the applicant.


title: Case F-22/08: Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Miguelez Herreras v Commission

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/33

         Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Miguelez Herreras v Commission
   (Case F-22/08)
   (2008/C 116/63)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Benedicta Miguelez Herreras (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of 17 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant no additional priority points and therefore upholds the award of two priority points and a total of 23 points in the 2003 Promotion procedure, and an order that the defendant pay compensation.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 17 April 2007 in so far as it awards the applicant no additional priority points and therefore upholds the award of two priority points and a total of 23 points in the 2003 Promotion procedure;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 5 000;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-245/02: Action brought on 19 August 2002 by Antonia de Jong against Europol

text:
26.10.2002            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 261/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 19 August 2002 by Antonia de Jong
                                                                                against Europol
—     allow the present action;
                                                                                (Case T-245/02)
—     annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal                                   (2002/C 261/33)
      of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 May 2002; and
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
—     order the Office in any event to pay, first, the applicant’s
      costs both before the Board of Appeal and before the
                                                                         An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
      Court of First Instance, together with the fees of the             First Instance of the European Communities on 19 August
      lawyers instructed by it, and second, the translation              2002 by Antonia de Jong, residing in The Hague (Netherlands),
      costs incurred by the applicant in the procedures for              represented by Pauline de Casparis and Maria Franciscus
      examination of its application and consideration of its            Baltussen.
      appeal before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         1.    Set aside Europol’s rejection of the applicant’s complaint
                                                                               brought against the Decision of 23 November 2001 and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                at the same time annul the contested Decision of
                                                                               23 November 2001;
Community trade mark:         the word mark ‘TOP’ — Appli-
                              cation 604 975                             2.    Principally, order Europol to grant the applicant two
                                                                               additional salary increments with effect from 1 July 2001,
                                                                               and, in the alternative, order Europol to grant the
Goods or services con-        herbal food capsule or powder;                   applicant one additional salary increment with effect
cerned:                       herbal nutritional supplement.                   from 1 July 2001;
                              (Classes 5 and 29)
                                                                         3.    Order Europol to pay to the applicant the amounts due
Decision of the exam-         refusal of the application for regis-            under (2) within 48 hours of pronouncement of the
iner:                         tration                                          judgment to be delivered in this case, plus such statutory
                                                                               interest as is due on those amounts in accordance with
                                                                               Netherlands law;
Decision of the Board of      dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:                                                                  4.    Order Europol to pay to the applicant, within 48 hours
                                                                               of pronouncement of the judgment to be delivered in this
Grounds put forward:          1.    infringement of the audi                   case, the sum of EUR 1 000 as compensation for the
                                    alteram partem rule and of the             non-material damage which she has suffered;
                                    rights of the defence
                                                                         5.    Order Europol to pay the costs incurred by the applicant
                              2.    impermissibly long pro-                    in the present proceedings.
                                    cedure before the Office’s
                                    Boards of Appeal from the
                                    lodging of the appeal to noti-
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                    fication of the decision to the
                                    applicant
                                                                         The applicant works for Europol. In the contested decision,
                              3.    non-notification of matters          the defendant refused to grant a salary increase to the applicant
                                    upon which the contested             on the basis of her report.
                                    decision was based
                              4.    insufficient and unclear             The applicant contends that this decision is contrary to
                                    grounds of the contested             Article 29 of the Europol Staff Regulations. According to the
                                    decision                             applicant, the Management Board has failed to lay down the
                                                                         necessary rules for the award of salary increases in accordance
                              5.    suitability for registration of      with that article. The applicant further pleads that the Director
                                    the mark                             exceeded his discretionary powers, inasmuch as the decision-
                                                                         making procedure does not satisfy the requirements of due
                              6.    distinctive character of the         care and impartiality. Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement
                                    mark                                 of the principles of equal treatment and protection of legitimate
                                                                         expectations.


title: Case C-160/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2003/51/EC — Company law — Annual accounts of certain types of companies — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 8 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-160/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2003/51/EC - Company law - Annual accounts of certain types of companies - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 95/21)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, P. Gentili, avvocato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings (OJ 2003 L 178, p. 16)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC, 86/635/EEC and 91/674/EEC on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case T-515/08: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2010 — Mauerhofer v Commission (Multiple framework contract ‘Commission 2007’ — Recruitment of experts in the context of actions relating to aid granted to non-member countries — Tasks requiring expertise — Commission measure relating to the number of billable days’ work — Action for annulment — No challengeable act — Inadmissibility — Action for damages — Causal link — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/44

         Order of the General Court of 29 June 2010 — Mauerhofer v Commission
   (Case T-515/08) (1)

   (Multiple framework contract ‘Commission 2007’ - Recruitment of experts in the context of actions relating to aid granted to non-member countries - Tasks requiring expertise - Commission measure relating to the number of billable days’ work - Action for annulment - No challengeable act - Inadmissibility - Action for damages - Causal link - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2010/C 221/72
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Volker Mauerhofer (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: J. Schartmüller, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Boelaert, Agent)

      Re:

   Application for, first, annulment of the Commission’s administrative order of 9 September 2008 amending specific contract 2007/146271, which had been concluded between the Commission and the framework contractor for the project ‘Value Chain Mapping Analysis’ carried out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by reducing the number of days’ work carried out by the applicant — under a contract between him and the framework contractor — for which the framework contractor could bill the Commission, and second, the award of damages

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Volker Mauerhofer shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-236/12: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 25 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeş — Romania) — Comisariatul Judeţean pentru Protecţia Consumatorilor Argeş v SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — Sucursala Piteşti, Alin Iulian Matei, Petruţa Florentina Matei

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/21

         Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 25 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeş — Romania) — Comisariatul Judeţean pentru Protecţia Consumatorilor Argeş v SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — Sucursala Piteşti, Alin Iulian Matei, Petruţa Florentina Matei
   (Case C-236/12) (1)

   2014/C 184/26
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 4. 8. 2012.


title: Case T-15/04: Action brought on 14 January 2004 by Sandoz GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.3.2004              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 71/35
Action brought on 14 January 2004 by Alto de Casablanca,                 Decision of the Board of      Appeal rejected
S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                Appeal:
         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                         Pleas in law:                 The applicant is represented by a
                                                                                registered patent agent and trade
                          (Case T-14/04)
                                                                                mark attorney, authorised to prac-
                                                                                tice both in the United Kingdom
                          (2004/C 71/62)                                                               and at a European level. The appli-
                                                                                cant claims that, on these
                                                                                grounds, its representative is also
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)                                      authorised to represent it before
of the Rules of Procedure-language in which the application was                                        the Court of First Instance of
                         submitted: English)                                                           the European Communities. In
                                                                                support of the substantive part
                                                                                of its application the applicant
                                                                                submits that the mark applied for
                                                                                did          not         contravene
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Article 8 (1) (b), of Regulation 40/
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                                94 (1) and the Office was mistaken
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                                to refuse registration.
14 January 2004 by Alto de Casablanca, S.A., Casablance,
(Chile), represented by A. W. Pluckrose, Chartered Patent
Attorney. Bodegas Julián Chivite, S.L. was also a party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.                                  (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                             Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeals of the
      Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
      4 November 2003;
—     direct the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market         Action brought on 14 January 2004 by Sandoz GmbH
      to proceed to register Community Mark Application                    against the Commission of the European Communities
      number 568337;
—     order payment of the Applicant’s costs.                                                     (Case T-15/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/63)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Applicant for the Com-         ALTO DE CASABLANCA S.A.
munity trade mark:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Community trade mark           Word mark ‘VERAMONTE’ for
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
sought:                        goods in class 33 (wine)
                                                                         European Communities on 14 January 2004 by Sandoz
                                                                         GmbH, Kundl, (Austria), represented by C. Thomas and
Proprietor of the right to     BODEGAS JULIAN CHIVITE S.L.               N. Dagg, Solicitors, and B. Oosting, lawyer.
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Trade mark or sign             National marks ‘BEAMONTE’ and             —    annul the Commission decision, notified to the applicant
asserted by way of oppo-       ‘BODEGAS BEAMONTE’ for                         by letter dated 14 November 2003, not to proceed with
sition in the opposition       goods in class 33 (wines, spirits,             the decision for a marketing authorisation of Omnitrop
proceedings:                   liquors) and services in class 39              under Article 10(1)(a)(ii) of Directive 2001/83 and to
                               (goods transportation services)                send the CPMP opinion of 26 June 2003 back to the
                                                                              EMEA;
Decision of the Oppo-          Registration refused
sition Division:                                                         —    order the Commission to pay the applicants costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/36                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     The scientific rigour of comparability exercises is clear
                                                                                from the CPMP’s 2001 Note for Guidance and from the
                                                                                CPMP’s review of OMNITROP.
The context of the contested Decision was an application for              —     The use of comparability studies is therefore fully consist-
marketing authorisation made to the European Agency for the                     ent with the objective of safeguarding public health, and
Evaluation of Medicinal Products in 2001, in accordance with                    certainly does not represent any relaxation of health
scientific advice from the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal                  protection standards.
Products (CPMP), which issued a favourable Opinion in June
2003. However, the Commission decided not to proceed with
                                                                          —     The CPMP consistently opposed the use of the essential
a decision on the authorisation of the medicinal product in
                                                                                similarity route.
question, OMNITROP, under Article 10(1)(a)(ii) and Annex I
of the Directive 2001/83 of the European Parliament and
Council of 6 November 2001, on the Community Code
relating to medicinal products for human use (1), on the basis            (1) OJ L 311 of 28.11.2001, p. 67.
that the performance of ‘comparability studies’ implied that              (2) Case C-440/93 [1995] ECR I-2851.
the legal conditions for the application of the procedure were
not met. Hence, the dispute between the applicant and the
Commission relates to the interpretation of Article 10(1)(a)(ii)
and Annex I of this Directive, which govern ‘bibliographical
applications’ based on the well-established medicinal use of
the product concerned.
The applicant considers in this respect that the defendant’s              Action brought on 15 January 2004 by Arcelor S.A.
position conflicts with the clear wording of the applicable               against the European Parliament and the Council of the
legislation. It would also conflict with the scientific view of the                               European Union
body established to provide the Community with expertise in
these matters, the CPMP.
                                                                                (Case T-16/04)
Accordingly, the applicant submits, as a single plea, the                                          (2004/C 71/64)
infringement of Article 10(1)(a)(ii) and Annex I, mainly
indent d) of Sections I of its Parts 3 and 4, for the following
grounds:                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
—     Annex I to Directive 2001/83 expressly requires the
      CPMP to make a judgment on whether two products are
      similar, and this necessarily requires the applicant to             An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
      support its explanations with comparability studies.                the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities on 15 January 2004
                                                                          by Arcelor S.A., Luxembourg, represented by Dr W. Deselaers,
—     The rules established by the Scotia judgment (2), as                Dr Bernd Meyring and Dr B. Schmitt-Rady, lawyers.
      invoked, in the Commission’s Decision, have previously
      been reversed by the Commission’s own legislation.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     The Commission has publicly rejected the ‘extremely
      rigid’ approach of the Scotia judgment and called for a             —     Declare Articles 4, 12(3) and 6(2e), 9, 16(2), (3) and (4),
      ‘flexible’ approach to Article 10(1)(a)(ii) of the Directive              in conjunction with Article 2, Annex I and Annex III,
      2001/83.                                                                  No. 1, of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parlia-
                                                                                ment and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing
                                                                                a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading
—     The principles governing comparability exercises have                     within the Community and amending Council Directive
      been established by the Communty’s centre of expertise                    96/61 EC void to the extent that these provisions apply
      on biotechnology-derived products (the EMEA) and the                      to installations for the production of pig iron or steel
      exercise will always be carried out under the EMEA’s                      (primary or secondary fusion) including continuous cast-
      supervision.                                                              ing, with a capacity exceeding 2,5 tonnes per hour;


title: Case T-326/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 4 December 2007 — Cheminova and Others v Commission (Application for interim relief — Directive 91/414/EEC — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility — No urgency)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/45

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 4 December 2007 — Cheminova and Others v Commission
   (Case T-326/07 R)
   (Application for interim relief - Directive 91/414/EEC - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - No urgency)
   (2008/C 22/84)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Cheminova A/S (Harboøre, Denmark), Cheminova Agro Italia Srl (Rome, Italy), Cheminova Bulgaria EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria), Agrodan, SA (Madrid, Spain) and Lodi SAS (Grand Fougeray, France) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and L. Parpala, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/389/EC of 6 June 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of malathion in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 146, p. 19) pending the full resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-576/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Germany v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Distribution of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons — Regulation (EC) No 983/2008 — Plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2009 budget year for the distribution programme — Mobilisations on the market — Actions for annulment)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 April 2011 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-576/08) (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Distribution of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons - Regulation (EC) No 983/2008 - Plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2009 budget year for the distribution programme - Mobilisations on the market - Actions for annulment)
   2011/C 160/21
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially M. Lumma and B. Klein, then M. Lumma, B. Klein, T.Henze and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and A. Szmytkowska, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk, K. Petkovska, S. Johannesson and M. A Engman, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by B. Plaza Cruz, acting as Agent); French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues and B. Cabouat, acting as Agents); Italian Republic (represented initially by I. Bruni, acting as Agent, and subsequently par M. P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato); and Republic of Poland (represented initially by M. Dowgielewicz, and subsequently by M. Szpunar, and finally by Szpunar, B. Majczyna and M. Drwiecki, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   ACTION for partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 983/2008 of 3 October 2008 adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2009 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community (OJ 2008 L 268, p. 3).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2 of and Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 983/2008 of 3 October 2008 adopting the plan allocating to the Member States resources to be charged to the 2009 budget year for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community;

               2.

               Orders that the validity of allocations already made is not affected by the annulment of Article 2 of and Annex II to Regulation No 983/2008;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Poland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case C-83/05: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Freiburg — Germany) — Bernd Voigt (Completion of the internal market — Approximation of laws — Motor vehicles — Community type-approval procedure — Directive 70/156/EEC — Scope — Classification according to the technical characteristics of vehicle types — Effect on vehicle classification of a national regulation governing road traffic)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Freiburg — Germany) — Bernd Voigt
   (Case C-83/05) (1)

   (Completion of the internal market - Approximation of laws - Motor vehicles - Community type-approval procedure - Directive 70/156/EEC - Scope - Classification according to the technical characteristics of vehicle types - Effect on vehicle classification of a national regulation governing road traffic)
   (2006/C 224/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Amtsgericht Freiburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bernd Voigt
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Freiburg — Interpretation of Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 96), as amended by Council Directive 92/53/EEC of 18 June 1992 (OJ 1992 L 225 p. 1) — Registration by a Member State of a category M1 vehicle (passenger car) covered by Community type-approval — Whether the national authorities may penalise the driver of such a vehicle for road traffic offences which relate to goods vehicles — Motorway speed limits applicable solely to goods vehicles
   Operative part of the judgment
   Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, as amended by Council Directive 92/53/EEC of 18 June 1992, is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national rules which provide that a vehicle such as the one in question in the main proceedings is not subject to the national speed limits for passenger cars, even where that vehicle has been registered as a passenger car on the basis of a Community type-approval granted pursuant to that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005.


title: Action brought on 15 January 1997 by Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-6/97)

text:
 No C 74/24            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 3 . 97
 Action brought on 13 January 1997 by Industrie des                  as the defendant took the view that Pechiney had
 Poudres Spheriques (IPS ) against the Commission of                 attempted to improve the quality of its calcium with a
                   the European Communities                          view to supplying the applicant. The applicant stresses the
                         ( Case T-5/97 )                             fact that the statements made on several occasions by
                                                                     Pechiney, in numerous exchanges of correspondence with
                           ( 97/C 74/49 )                            the applicant, concerning the production of the calcium
                                                                     which it was awaiting, were never followed by the
                 (Language of the case: French)                      slightest explanation as to the reasons why that calcium
                                                                     was never ready. Moreover, according to the applicant,
 An action against the Commission of the European                    Pechiney has failed to provide any details whatever
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                   concerning the arrangements which it was allegedly
 Instance of the European Communities on 13 January                  making in order to improve the quality of its calcium.
 1997 by Industrie des Poudres Spheriques ( IPS ), having its        Consequently, the Commission merely undertook a
 seat at Annemasse ( France ), represented by Chantal                superficial appraisal of the various items of
 Momege, of the Paris Bar, with an adress for service in             correspondence sent by Pechiney to the applicant, without
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand                 embarking on any serious assessment of the documents in
 Rue .                                                               the case .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                         In addition to pleading the erroneous appraisal concerning
                                                                     the existence of abusive practices, the applicant claims
— annul the Commission 's decision of 7 November 1996                that the Commission's analysis is based on a number of
     rejecting its complaint in Case IV/35151/E-1 ,                  errors of assessment, in that the defendant:
— order the Council to pay all the costs.                           — considers that the applicant's process calls for
                                                                          particular specifications which differ from those of
                                                                          other calcium metal processors,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    — states that no producer has specified the oxygen
The applicant, a small company specializing in the                       content of its calcium,
production of granulated radioactive metals, needs, in
order to meet its production requirements, to obtain                — disregarded the fact that the difficulty in arriving at a
supplies of calcium metal. Since commencing production                   reliable method of analysing the calcium is attributable
in 1982, it has approached Pechiney, the sole Community                  to unwillingness on the part of Pechiney, and
producer, with a view to procuring from the latter all the
supplies of the product which it requires. However, its
                                                                    — took the view that the applicant could obtain
endeavours have been wholly fruitless. The applicant
                                                                         deliveries from western suppliers or from other third
states, by way of explanation for Pechiney's conduct, that               countries .
the latter has developed a process in competition with that
of the applicant and that the two companies have become
competitors as regards the derivative product known as
split calcium. According to the applicant, one of the
delaying tactics employed by Pechiney has been to use the
anti-dumping instrument solely in order to exclude
supplies from outside the Community.                                Action brought on 15 January 1997 by Comafrica SpA
                                                                    and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities
The present action is directed against the rejection by the
Commission of the complaint lodged by the applicant                                          ( Case T-6/97 )
with a view to bringing to an end Pechiney's infringement                                     ( 97/C 74/50 )
of Article 86 of the EC Treaty in the calcium metal
market.                                                                              (Language of the case: English)
In support of its claims, the applicant maintains, first of         An action against the Commission of the European
all, that there has been an infringement of Articles 190            Communities was brought before the Court of First
and 86 of the Treaty, as well as a manifest error of                Instance of the European Communities on 15 January
assessment, in that the Commission disregarded the link             1997 by Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd
between Pechiney's delaying tactics and the use of the              & Co ., represented by Bernard O'Connor, with an address
anti-dumping instrument. By acting in that way, the                 for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Arsene
defendant failed to verify the extent to which Pechiney             Kronshagen, Rue Marie Adelaide 22.
abused its dominant position by resorting to the anti
dumping procedure in conjunction with its exclusion                 The applicants claim that the Court should:
practics .
                                                                    — declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
Second, the applicant also complains that the defendant                  EC Treaty, Regulation ( EC ) No 2035/96 in so far as it
has committed a manifest error of assessment, as well as                 affects the applicants, or alternatively, declare the said
an infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty, inasmuch                 regulation void erga omnes,
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 3 . 97              EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 74/25
— order the Commission, pursuant to Article 178 and                     designed to prevent erosion of rights as between
     the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty,              Categories A and B.
     to make good any damage caused to the applicants by
     the wrongful adoption of Regulation ( EC ) No 203 5/96,
                                                                        The role of the Member States in collecting and
                                                                        transmitting information to the Commission cannot
                                                                        prevent the latter from checking that such information is
— order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the                 accurate .
      applicants.
                                                                        For the purpose of calculating the licence rights for 1997,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        most of the quantities handled by the various categories of
                                                                        operators could be accurately calculated simply by
                                                                        analysing licences issued and used during 1993 , 1994 and
                                                                        1995 . Furthermore, in adopting a provisional reduction
The applicants are members of the Dole group of                         coefficient based on such incorrect figures, the
companies, a group engaged in the worldwide business of                 Commission has acted in breach of the principle of non
producing, processing, distributing and marketing quality               discrimination laid down in Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC
branded fruit products, primarily fresh fruit and                       Treaty.
vegetables and packaged fruits and nuts . The applicants
are registered as Category A operators, as defined by
Article 2 ( a ) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93
of 1 0 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application
of the arrangements for importing bananas into the
Community ( OJNoL 142, 12 . 6 . 1993 , p. 6 ).
                                                                        Action brought on 16 January 1997 by Union Carbide
                                                                        Corporation (UCC ) against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
The application concerns the administration by the
Commission of the rules governing the allocation of                                              (Case T-8/97 )
licences for the import of third-country and non                                                 ( 97/C 74/51 )
traditional ACP bananas into the Community under the
tariff quota established by Article 18 ( 1 ) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the                                  (Language of the case: English)
common organization of the market in bananas (OJ No
L 47, 25 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 ). It arises out of the decision of the
Commission to reduce the quantity of licences allocated to              An action against the Commission of the European
the applicants for the year 1997 through the application                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
of a provisional reduction coefficient based on incorrect                Instance of the European Communities on 16 January
reference quantities as set out in Commission Regulation                 1997 by Union Carbide Corporation (UCC ), represented
(EC ) No 2035/96 of 20 October 1996 fixing the single                    by Brian Hartnett, with an adress for service in
reduction      coefficient   for    the  determination    of   the       Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach,
provisional quantity of bananas to be allocated to each                  Postal Box 39 .
operator in Categories A and B from the tariff quota for
1997 ( OJ No L 272 , 25 . 10 . 1996, p. 6 ).
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of their claims, the applicants submit that the              — annul, in whole or in part, Commission Decision C/96
Commission determined the reference quantity on the                          1035 final — Shell/Montecatini, and
basis of figures which were known to be inaccurate .
According to them, these inaccuracies are not confined to
the figures themselves. Simple mistakes in mathematics                   — order the Commission to pay the costs, disbursements
and reporting have also been made . They consider, in this                   and fees of the applicant pursuant to Article 87 of the
regard, that even if the adoption of a provisional                           Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of
 reduction coefficient might appear to be a practical                        the European Communities .
response to the difficult problem of monitoring the
 market, the difference between the reference quantities
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 claimed and the actual licences issued are used during the
 reference period, which amounts to an error of 27,8 % ,
 can no longer be justified on the basis of existing                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
 difficulties resulting from the initial operation of the                those raised in Case T-153/96 (Union Carbide Corporation
 common organization of the market. The applicants stress                v. the Commission of the European Communities, OJ No
 that the abovementioned error gives rise to gradual                     C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996 , p. 33 ).
 erosion of their import rights and will result in their losing
 all rights to operate in the banana market, contrary to
 Article 19 (2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 , which is


title: Cases C-339/01, C-343/01 and C-357/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg by orders of 4 September 2001, 10 September 2001 and 11 September 2001 in the appeals brought by Kurt Beck, Christian Kröll and Manfred Laaber

text:
C 3/12                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.1.2002
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                         Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg by orders of
                                                                         4 September 2001, 10 September 2001 and 11 September
                                                                         2001 in the appeals brought by Kurt Beck, Christian Kröll
                       (Fourth Chamber)                                                        and Manfred Laaber
                      of 18 October 2001                                           (Cases C-339/01, C-343/01 and C-357/01)
in Case C-241/00 P: Kish Glass Co. Ltd v Commission                                               (2002/C 3/17)
of the European Communities and Pilkington United
                         Kingdom Ltd (1)
(Appeal — Competition — Dominant position — Market in
float glass — Rights of the complainant — Appeal mani-                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        festly unfounded)                                European Communities by orders of 4 September 2001,
                                                                         10 September 2001 and 11 September 2001 by the Unabhän-
                                                                         giger Verwaltungssenat of the Land Vorarlberg (Independent
                                                                         Administrative Chamber of the Land Vorarlberg), which were
                          (2002/C 3/16)                                  received at the Court Registry on 10 September 2001
                                                                         (C-339/01), 12 September 2001 (C-343/01) and on 20 Sep-
                                                                         tember 2001 (C-357/01), for a preliminary ruling in the
                  (Language of the case: English)                        appeals brought by Kurt Beck, Christian Kröll and Manfred
                                                                         Laaber on the following questions:
                                                                         1.   Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC (1)
                                                                              of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the
                                                                              laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
In Case C-241/00 P: Kish Glass Co. Ltd, established in Dublin                 presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to
(Ireland), represented by P. Watson BL and M. Byrne, Solicitor,               the ultimate consumer (now consolidated in European
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                 Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC of
the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) in Case T-65/96                     20 March 2000, OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29; hereinafter
Kish Glass v Commission [2000] ECR II-1885 seeking to have                    ‘the labelling Directive’), under which — subject to
that judgment set aside and the forms of order sought by the                  Community provisions applicable to natural mineral
applicant at first instance granted, the other parties to the                 waters and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses,
proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities                     the labelling and methods used may not attribute to any
(Agent: R. Lyal, assisted and by N. Khan) and Pilkington United               foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or curing a
Kingdom Ltd, established in Saint Helens, Merseyside (United                  human disease, or suggest that it possesses such proper-
Kingdom), represented by J. Kallaugher — the Court (Fourth                    ties, preclude national legislation which makes it an
Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamb-                   offence when marketing foodstuffs:
er, A. La Pergola and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given an order on 18 October 2001, in which it:                               (a)   to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,
                                                                                in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
                                                                                inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
                                                                                tain health, or to create the impression of any such
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                         effect;
2.    Orders Kish Glass Co. Ltd to pay the costs.                             (b) to refer to case histories, recommendations made by
                                                                                doctors or medical experts’ reports;
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                    (c)   to use health-related, pictorial or stylised represen-
                                                                                tations of organs of the human body, pictures
                                                                                of members of the health-care professions or of
                                                                                sanatoria or other pictures or illustrations referring
                                                                                to health-care activities?
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 3/13
2.   Do the labelling Directive or Articles 28 and 30 EC                2.   If the answer to Question 1 — first alternative — is
     preclude a national provision which, on the placing into                affirmative, does the airport operator also have the right
     circulation of foodstuffs, permits health-related infor-                to claim such a licence fee from a self-handler and/or
     mation such as that described in question (1) to be affixed             supplier of handling services to third parties (supplier in
     thereto only after prior authorisation by the competent                 the situation of the defendant in the main proceedings)
     federal minister, whereby a condition of authorisation is               in sectors where free access to the ground-handling
     that the health-related information is consistent with                  market was already guaranteed prior to entry into force
     protecting the consumer from being misled?                              of Directive 96/67, in particular in regard to land-side
                                                                             handling services?
(1) OJ L 33, p. 1.
                                                                        3.   If Question 2 is answered affirmatively, is Directive 96/67
                                                                             to be interpreted as entitling the managing body within
                                                                             the meaning of Article 3 also to demand payment of an
                                                                             additional licence fee as described in Question 1 for
                                                                             ‘access to airport installations’ from a self-handler and/or
                                                                             a supplier of services in the situation of the defendant in
                                                                             the main proceedings who, until entry into force of
                                                                             Directive 96/67 or of provisions transposing it into
                                                                             national law, paid (only) rent for the use of the relevant
                                                                             airport installations?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
richt, Frankfurt am Main, by order of that court of 10 July
2001 in the case of Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen                      4.   May it even be mandatory to demand (additionally)
                GmbH v Deutsche Lufthansa AG                                 payment of a licence fee by a self-handler and/or supplier
                                                                             of handling services who has hitherto enjoyed free access
                                                                             to that market, or to the self-handling sector, without
                         (Case C-363/01)                                     being required to pay an additional licence fee, in order
                                                                             to prevent unequal treatment in relation to other self-
                                                                             handlers and suppliers of ground-handling services
                          (2002/C 3/18)
                                                                             (a)   who have already hitherto been requested to pay a
                                                                                supplementary licence fee in addition to a user fee;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                       (b) who are for the first time granted access to airport
(Higher Regional Court), received at the Court Registry on                         installations on the basis of the legal situation
24 September 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                         created by Directive 96/67 and are henceforth being
Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH v Deutsche Lufthan-                            requested to pay a licence fee for such access
sa AG on the following questions:                                                  in addition to a further user fee for use of the
                                                                                installations?
1.   Is Council Directive 96/67/EC (1) of 15 October 1996
     on access to the groundhandling market, in particular
     Article 16(3) thereof, in conjunction with recital 25 in           5.   In so far as Article 16(3) of Directive 96/67 entitles
     the preamble thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that                 an airport’s managing body to require payment of a
     the managing body of an airport within the meaning of                   supplementary licence fee as described above, does a
     Article 3 is entitled to demand from a self-handler and/or              licence fee which is required to be paid in addition to a
     a supplier of handling services to third parties payment                fee for use of check-in desks meet the requirements
     of a separate licence fee for the grant of ‘access to airport           of Article 16(3) in regard to relevance, objectivity,
     installations’ in the sense of an access fee in return for the          transparency and non-discrimination where it is deter-
     opening-up of a commercial opportunity in addition to a                 mined according to numbers of passengers (in this case
     user fee (rental) payable by the self-handler or a supplier             DM 0,30 per passenger checked in)?
     to third parties of handling services for the rental under
     contract of airport installations, in this case, passenger
     check-in desks;
                                                                        (1) OJ L 272, p. 36.
     or alternatively, does Directive 96/67 merely provide
     that, for the purposes of determining a user fee, account
     is to be taken of the criteria mentioned in Article 16(3)
     and regard is to be had to the interest of the managing
     body of the airport in achieving a profit?


title: Case T-396/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Zucchetti Rubinetteria v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/51

         Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Zucchetti Rubinetteria v Commission
   (Case T-396/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/81
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Zucchetti Rubinetteria SpA (Gozzano, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi and P. Ziotti, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision.

               —

               In the alternative, annul the fine imposed or reduce the amount of the fine.

               —

               In the further alternative, reduce the amount of the fine by granting the request to take account of the attenuating circumstance referred to in Section 29 of the Guidelines on the method of calculating fines.

               —

               In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in these proceedings is the same as that in Case T-368/10 Rubinetteria Cisal v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in that case. In particular, the applicant submits that the products referred to in the decision belong to three separate markets, that Zucchetti is present only on the taps market and that the Commission’s decision does not carry out a prior identification of the relevant market. The decision is also defective in terms of its assessment of the geographic extent of the market and the effects of the cartel on the operating conditions on the market.
   The applicant adds that the reconstruction of the agreements and/or concerted practices which led the Commission to find that the applicant had participated in a single, complex and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU solely on account of its collusive behaviour in Italy is vitiated and does not state the reasons on which the finding is based, since it totally fails to show that the applicant was aware of the unlawful conduct engaged in by the other undertakings allegedly participating in the cartel.


title: Case T-90/05: Action brought on 24 February 2005 by Omega, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/24

         Action brought on 24 February 2005 by Omega, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-90/05)
   (2005/C 115/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 February 2005 by Omega, S.A., established in Bienne (Switzerland) represented by P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocon.
   Omega Engineering, Inc., established in Stamford, Connecticut (USA) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated 10 December 2004 in case R 330/2002-2;

               —

               Order that the Office shall bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               Figurative mark OMEGA for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 25, 28, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42 application No 225 771

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Omega Engineering Inc.

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               National word and figurative marks OMEGA, MICROMEGA, OMEGA.COM, OMEGASOFT, OMEGANET for goods in classes 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 35, 41, and 42

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Refusal of registration for goods and services in classes 9 and 42

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20.12.1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).