title: Case C-1/00 SA: Application brought on 14 December 2000 by Cotecna Inspection SA for leave to attach assets held by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 45/6                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.2.2001
Application brought on 14 December 2000 by Cotecna                      2.    Do the so-called ‘simple’ cases of difference in the second
Inspection SA for leave to attach assets held by the                          sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 9(2) of the
         Commission of the European Communities                               regulation presuppose the making of a ‘false declaration’
                                                                              in the application itself, or is it simply a question of
                        (Case C-1/00 SA)                                      comparing the information given in the application with
                                                                              the result of the on-the-spot inspection?
                          (2001/C 45/11)
                                                                        (1) OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36.
An application for leave to attach assets held by the Com-
mission of the European Communities was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 December
2000 by Cotecna Inspection S.A., represented by Jacques
H.J. Bourgeois, of the Brussels Bar, of Messrs Akin, Gump,
Strauss, Hauer & Fedd, with an address for service in Luxem-            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
bourg at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, 8-10                KöIn by order of 10 November 2000 in the case of Aventis
Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                      Pharma Deutschland GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH and
                                                                                MTK Pharma Vertriebs GmbH
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case C-433/00)
—     grant the applicant leave to attach assets held by the                                       (2001/C 45/13)
      Commission amounting to USD 2 265 550,63 together
      with interest at the legal rate in force in Djibouti from         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      28 January 2000, being the date of the arbitration award,         European Communities by order of 10 November 2000 by
      and USD 66 000,                                                   the Landgericht KöIn (Regional Court, Cologne) which was
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 23 November 2000, for a
with a view to the enforcement of an arbitration award made             preliminary ruling in the case of Aventis Pharma Deutschland
against the State of Djibouti which has become enforceable              GmbH v Kohlpharma GmbH and MTK Pharma Vertriebs
pursuant to an order made the Tribunal de Première Instance,            GmbH on the following questions:
Brussels.
                                                                        1.    Do the provisions governing the central authorisation of
                                                                              medicinal products in the European Union — in particu-
                                                                              lar those of Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 (1) — preclude
                                                                              the legal possibility of ‘bundling’ (that is to say, the joining
                                                                              together of several packages, each bearing the necessary
                                                                              labelling, in order to form a new retail unit) of packages
                                                                              of medicinal products following importation into one
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberverwal-                         Member State from another Member State, in such a way
tungsgericht des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt by order of that                       that ‘repackaging’ of medicinal products (that is to say,
court of 7 September 2000 in the case of Agrargenossen-                       the production of new external packaging to which
schaft Pretzsch e.G. against Amt für Landwirtschaft und                       the importer affixes the foreign trademark without the
                    Flurneuordnung Anhalt                                     authorisation of the trademark holder) is ‘necessary’
                                                                              within the meaning of the decision of the European Court
                         (Case C-417/00)                                      of Justice in Case C-232/94 MPA Pharma v Rhône-
                                                                              Poulenc Pharma (2) and the trademark holder for that
                                                                              reason cannot prohibit such repackaging?
                          (2001/C 45/12)
                                                                        2.    In the event that Question 1 should be answered in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        negative:
European Communities by order of the Oberverwaltungsge-
richt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (Higher Administrative Court                  Do the rules on the free movement of goods within the
for the Land Sachsen-Anhalt) of 7 September 2000, received                    Common Market or other rules of Community law stand
at the Court Registry on 13 November 2000, for a preliminary                  in the way of a prohibition which, in cases of the kind
ruling in the case of Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch e.G. v                     referred to in Question 1, is directed against ‘repackaging’
Amt für Landwirtschaft und Flurneuordnung Anhalt on the                       on the ground, derived from national trademark law, that
following questions:                                                          the possibility of creating a bundle package, which,
                                                                              moreover, exists de facto and de jure, constitutes a less
                                                                              intrusive interference with the rights of the trademark
1.    On a proper interpretation of the third subparagraph of
                                                                              holder?
      Article 9(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92, (1) does
      ‘false declaration’ refer to a culpable positive act in the
      context of an application for aid, so that failure to report      (1) OJ 1993 L 214 of 24.8.1993, p. 1.
      to the granting authority changes which are relevant to           (2) [1996] ECR I-3671.
      the application but do not occur until afterwards is not
      penalised?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of that court of 7 October 1998, in the case of Ministério Publico and António Gomes Valente v. Fazenda Pública (Case C-393/98)

text:
19.12.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 397/25
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              light passenger vehicles taking account only of the
                                                                          cylinder capacity of the vehicle, subject to
                                                                          deduction from the levy of a percentage of 18 %,
                                                                          24 %, 32 %, 41 %, 49 %, 55 %, 61 % or 67 %
Ð declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
                                                                          (depending whether the imported vehicle has been
     down the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                          in use for between one and two, two and three,
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                          three and four, four and five, five and six, six and
     93/3/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of
                                                                          seven or seven and eight years) of what would be
     foodstuffs, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          payable on a new vehicle (imported or bought on
     obligations under that directive;
                                                                          the domestic market) and where for a vehicle
                                                                          which has been used for more than eight years
                                                                          33 % of the car tax which would be payable on a
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                           new vehicle (imported or bought on the domestic
                                                                          market) has to be paid without, in either of such
                                                                          situations, account being taken of all the other
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       factors which influence the value of a car, such as
                                                                          kilometrage, strate of upkeep and the model,
                                                                          among others, guarantee perfect neutrality of
                                                                          domestic taxation as regards competition between
The Member States are required by the binding character                   domestic and imported products (in this case cars)
of the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of                 and is it compatible with the first paragraph of
the EC Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose                   Article 95 of the EC Treaty?
directives into national law before the expiry of the period
laid down for that purpose and to communicate those
measures immediately to the Commission. That period
expired on 14 December 1995 without the Hellenic                       2. It is compatible with the first paragraph of
Republic having communicated to the Commission                            Article 95 of the EC Treaty for national legislation
provisions transposing the directive at issue into national               to provide that the tax levied on an imported
law.                                                                      product and the tax levied on a similar national
                                                                          product are to be calculated differently and
                                                                          according to different procedures: the car tax on
(1) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993, p. 1.
                                                                          the imported use vehicle is calculated on the basis
                                                                          of its cylinder capacity, subject to a deduction
                                                                          based solely its years of use whereas in
                                                                          transactions on the national market involving a
                                                                          similar use vehicle no car tax is paid (since, being
                                                                          a single-stage tax, it is paid only once when the
                                                                          vehicle is put into circulation, in new condition),
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo                         when the fact is that its price may still incorporate
Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of                   a residual portion of that tax if it has not been in
that court of 7 October 1998, in the case of MinisteÂrio                  use for more than about four to five years, that
   Publico and António Gomes Valente v. Fazenda PuÂblica                  portion always being of uncertain amount, and
                                                                          not being separate from the purchase price, or
                       (Case C-393/98)                                    separable from it, because, amongst other reasons,
                                                                          the purchase of a used vehicle in Portugal is not
                        (98/C 397/44)                                     subject to car tax?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       3. In the light of the first paragraph of Article 95 of
European Communities by a judgment of the Second
                                                                          the EC Treaty, may it be considered that such a
Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
                                                                          system cannot, not even in only a few cases, lead
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 7 October 1998, which
                                                                          to higher taxation of the imported product and
was received at the Court Registry on 5 November 1998,
                                                                          that the system is regulated in such a way that the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of MinisteÂrio Publico
                                                                          possibility is always concluded of an imported
and António Gomes Valente v. Fazenda PuÂblica, on the
                                                                          vehicle being taxed at a higehr level than a similar
following questions:
                                                                          national vehicle?
(a) Are the questions raised in these proceedings by the
      appellant and set out below relevant? What is the                4. May, in the light of Community law, such a
      answer to those questions under Community law?                      system be regarded as transparent to the requisite
                                                                          extent so as to make it possible to determine
                                                                          objectively whether the fiscal charge on an
      1. Does legislation, like the Portuguese legislation,               imported car exceeds that levied on a similar
         which imposes a fixed-rate levy on imported used                 national car?
 ---pagebreak--- C 397/26                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.12.98
      5. In the light of Community law, may such a system             Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
          be applied in a fair way to products from the
          domestic market and to imported products?
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(b) Does depreciation of the real value of used vehicles,
      referred to in the judgment of the European Court of
      Justice in Case C-345/95 (1) Nunes Tadeu necessarily            The pleas in law and principal arguments advanced are
      imply that a valuation or expert assessment must be             analogous to those in Case C-394/98.
      carried out on every vehicle or may the calculation be
      made in general and abstract terms by reference to a            (1) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 28.
      legal criterion?
(c) If      the     European       Commission       discontinues
      infringement proceedings against a Member State on
      the understanding that the new national legislation is
      now in conformity with Community law, may a
      national supreme court, relying on the interpretation           Action brought on 6 November 1998 by the Commission
      of Community law and of national law adopted by                 of the European Communities against the Hellenic
      the Commission, be relieved of the obligation imposed                                       Republic
      on it by Article 177 of the EC Treaty to request a
                                                                                (Case C-398/98)
      preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the
      European Communities and decide the case in                                             (98/C 397/46)
      accordance with the interpretation adopted by the
      European Commission?
                                                                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
(1) [1995] ECR I-479.
                                                                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                      on 6 November 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Dimitris Triantafillou, of its
                                                                      Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a civil servant
                                                                      on secondment to the same service, with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de
                                                                      la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 5 November 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                              Belgium
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should declare
                          (Case C-395/98)                             that, by laying down and retaining a system for stocks of
                                                                      petroleum products which directly links the possibility of
                           (98/C 397/45)
                                                                      transferring to the refineries operating in the country the
                                                                      obligation to stock supplies with an obligation to obtain
                                                                      supplies of petroleum products from those refineries, and
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                  by precluding service stations from obtaining supplies
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities               from refineries or from another Member State, the
on 5 November 1998 by the Commission of the European                  Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Communities, represented by R. B. Wainwright, Principal               Article 30 of the EC Treaty.
Legal Adviser, and O. Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil
servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                      In the Commission's view, the Greek system for
The Commission of the European Communities claims                     maintaining emergency stocks is contrary to Article 30 of
that the Court should:                                                the EC Treaty to the extent that the effect of the
                                                                      obligations imposed on the petroleum product companies
                                                                      is to confer an advantage on the products of Greek
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by              refineries because the distribution companies are in reality
     failing to communicate to the Commission the laws,               obliged to obtain supplies exclusively from those
     regulations and administrative measures necessary in             refineries. The negative effects of that situation on the free
     order to comply with Commission Directive 95/13/EC               movement of petroleum products within the Community
     of 23 May 1995 implementing Council Directive 92/                are, additionally, intensified by the way in which the
     75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household              distribution of petroleum products is organised in Greece,
     electric tumble driers (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has           whereby service-station operators are required to obtain
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;           supplies exclusively from the distribution companies.


C 204/36              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    17.7.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-11/98 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-23/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/78)                                                         (1999/C 204/82)
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 26 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-11/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling       the register of Case C-23/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma): Abdulreza Kazemi              from the Tribunale di Genova): Palmira Ieropoli, Giovanni
Nava v Confcommercio.                                                  Sgambellone v Banca Carige SpA.
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.                                             (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-72/99 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/83)
                        (1999/C 204/79)
                                                                       By order of 27 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               the register of Case C-72/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the register of Case C-342/98: Commission of the European              from the Landesvergabeamt Tirol): Firma Ortner GmbH v
Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                               Innsbrucker Kommunalbetriebe AG.
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.                                             (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-346/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-25/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/80)                                                         (1999/C 204/84)
By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-346/98: Commission of the European              the register of Case C-25/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
Communities v Ireland.                                                 from the Tribunale di Genova): Fiduciaria Internazionale Srl v
                                                                       Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-419/98 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-26/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 204/81)                                                         (1999/C 204/85)
By order of 23 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-419/98 (reference for a preliminary             the register of Case C-26/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Genova): Marcella             ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Giolfo e C. Srl v
Moretti v Baoco Ambrosiano Veneto SpA.                                 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                              (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 16 December 1997 in Case C-316/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 93/53/EEC, 93/54/EEC, 93/113/EC and 93/114/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed periods)

text:
20.2.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 55/7
flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7), the Federal Republic of           Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC            President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
Treaty, Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: C.                  D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges;
Gulmann (Rapporteur) President of the Chamber, M.                    N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and            given a judgment on 11 December 1997, in which it:
L. Sevón, Judges; Advocate-General: N. Fennelly,
Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 11 December             1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the periods
1997, the operative part of which is as follows:                          prescribed all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                          provisions necessary to comply with
1. By failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
                                                                          Ð Commission Directive 93/72/EEC of 1 September
     laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                              1993 adapting to technical progress for the 19th
     necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/43/
                                                                              time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the
     EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
                                                                              approximation of the laws, regulations and
     habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Federal
                                                                              administrative      provisions   relating    to    the
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              classification, packaging and labelling of
     under Article 23 of that Directive.
                                                                              dangerous substances, and
2. The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay                      Ð Commission Directive 93/101/EC of 11 November
     the costs.                                                               1993 adapting Directive 67/548/EEC to technical
                                                                              progress for the 20th time,
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
                                                                          the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          obligations under Article 2(1) of those Directives;
                                                                     2. orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 11 December 1997
in    Case   C-190/97: Commission of the European
           Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
           Directives 93/72/EEC and 93/101/EC)                                             of 16 December 1997
                          (98/C 55/11)                               in    Case   C-316/96: Commission of the             European
                                                                                Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Ð
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Directives 93/53/EEC, 93/54/EEC, 93/113/EC and
                                                                     93/114/EC Ð Failure to transpose within the prescribed
                                                                                periods)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                                              (98/C 55/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-190/97: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Kingdom of
Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) Ð application for a                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
declaration that, by failing to adopt all the laws,                            published in the European Court Reports)
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Commission Directive 93/72/EEC of                        In Case C-316/96: Commission of the European
1 September 1993 adopting to technical progress for the              Communities (Agent: Paolo Ziotti) v. Italian Republic
19th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the                        (Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Oscar
approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative            Fiumara) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing
provisions relating to the classification, packaging and             to bring into force within the prescribed periods the laws,
labelling of dangerous substances (OJ L 258, 16.10.1993,             regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
p. 29), and Commission Directive 93/101/EC of                        comply with Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June
11 November 1993 adapting Directive 67/548/EEC to                    1993 introducing minimum Community measures for the
technical progress for the 20th time (OJ L 13, 15.1.1994,            control of certain fish diseases (OJ L 175, 19.7.1993,
p. 1), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its               p. 23), Council Directive 93/54/EEC of 24 June 1993
obligations under those Directives Ð the Court (Fifth                amending Directive 91/67/EEC concerning the animal
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/8                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
health conditions governing the placing on the market of              Administrativo (Portuguese Supreme Administrative
aquaculture animals and products (OJ L 175, 19.7.1993,                Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
p. 34), Council Directive 93/113/EC of 14 December 1993               before that court between FaÂbrica de Queijo Eru Portu-
concerning the use and marketing of enzymes, micro-                   guesa Ld..a and Subdirector-Geral das AlfaÃndegas; joined
organisms and their preparations in animal nutrition (OJ              as a party: MinisteÂrio PuÂblico Ð on the interpretation of
L 334, 31.12.1993, p. 17) and Council Directive 93/114/               Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of
EC of 14 December 1993 amending Directive 70/524/EEC                  16 July 1985 on inward processing relief arrangements
concerning additives in feedingstuffs (OJ L 334,                      (OJ L 188, 20.7.1985, p. 1) and Articles 27 and 28 of
31.12.1993, p. 24), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil         Council Regulation (EEC) No 3677/86 of 24 November
its obligations under those Directives and the EC Treaty              1986 laying down provisions for the implementation of
Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.                          Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 (OJ L 351, 12.12.1986,
Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R.                  p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)
Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch,             No 2281/88 of 25 July 1988 (OJ L 200, 26.7.1988, p. 20)
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                    Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H.
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
16 December 1997, in which it:                                        P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
                                                                      Colomer, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
1. declares that, by failing to bring into force within the           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     prescribed periods the laws, regulations and                     16 December 1997, in which it has ruled:
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993                      Article 28 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3677/86 of
     introducing minimum Community measures for the                   24 November 1986 laying down provisions for the
     control of certain fish diseases, Council Directive 93/          implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 on
     113/EC of 14 December 1993 concerning the use and                inward processing relief arrangements, as amended by
     marketing of enzymes, micro-organisms and their                  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2281/88 of 25 July
     preparations in animal nutrition and Council Directive           1988, must be interpreted as meaning that the time-limits
     93/114/EC of 14 December 1993 amending Directive                 for re-export laid down therein may not be extended.
     70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under the first subparagraph of Article 20(1) of                 (1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
     Directive 93/53/EEC, the first subparagraph of
     Article 8(1) of Directive 93/113/EC and the first
     subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 93/114/EC;
2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.                                                                     (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1997
                                                                      in    Case C-341/96: Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                      Directive 93/36/EEC Ð Failure to transpose within the
                       (Fourth Chamber)                                                     prescribed period)
                     of 16 December 1997                                                       (98/C 55/14)
in Case C-325/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): FaÂbrica de Queijo
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Eru Portuguesa Ld..a v. Subdirector-Geral das AlfaÃndegas;
            joined as a party: MinisteÂrio PuÂblico (1)
(Inward processing relief arrangements Ð Special                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
arrangements for milk sector products Ð Extension of the                       published in the European Court Reports)
                     time-limit for export)
                          (98/C 55/13)                                In Case C-341/96: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities (Agent: Claudia Schmidt) v. Federal
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)                     Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Bernd
                                                                      Kloke) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                      adopt within the prescribed period all the laws and
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        regulations necessary to comply with Council Directive
          published in the European Court Reports)                    93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for
                                                                      the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993,
In Case C-325/96: reference to the Court under Article 177            p. 1) and, in the alternative, by failing to notify the
of the EC Treaty from the Supremo Tribunal                            Commission immediately of the measures adopted in


title: Order of the Court of 24 October 2001 in Case C-186/01 R (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Alexander Dory v Federal Republic of Germany (Applications for interim relief — Preliminary reference procedure — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
C 84/34                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                             Article 3(a) and (b) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                           Article 3(a) and (b) EC), the first recital in the preamble to, and
2.    Anton Dürbeck GmbH shall pay the costs.                              Article 3(2) of, Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992
                                                                           on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and
3.    The French Republic and the Kingdom of Spain shall bear their        on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products and the
      own cost.                                                            sixth and eighth recitals in the preamble to Council Directive
                                                                           92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the
                                                                           structures of excise duties on mineral oils of 19 October 1992 on
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                  the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils
                                                                           must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member
                                                                           State refusing, upon the failure to pay by the customer of a trader in
                                                                           petroleum products, to reimburse an excise duty such as the domestic
                                                                           duty on petroleum products paid by such a trader.
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.
                          (First Chamber)
                      of 22 November 2001
in Case C-80/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
the Tribunal d’Instance de Châteauroux): Michel SARL v
                     Recettes des douanes (1)
                                                                                of 24 October 2001
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question the
answer to which may manifestly be deduced from the case-                   in Case C-186/01 R (reference for a preliminary ruling
law — Directive 92/12/EEC — General arrangements for,                      from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Alexander Dory
holding, movement and monitoring of products subject to                                   v Federal Republic of Germany (1)
excise duty — Directive 92/81/EEC — Harmonization of
the structures of excise duties on mineral oils — Non-
  reimbursement of an internal tax on petroleum products)                  (Applications for interim relief — Preliminary reference
                                                                                procedure — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
                           (2002/C 84/56)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/57)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-80/01: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunal d’Instance (District Court), Châteauroux                 In Case C-186/01 R: reference to the Court under Article 234
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending              EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) for a
before that court between Michel SARL and Recettes des                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
douanes — on the interpretation of Article 3(a) and (b) of the             court between Alexander Dory and The Federal Republic of
EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 3(a) and (b) EC), the             Germany — on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council
first recital in the preamble to, and Article 3(2) of, Council             Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implemen-
Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general                     tation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women
arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the                as regards access to employment, vocational training and
holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ                      promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) —
1992 L 76, p. 1), and the sixth and eighth recitals in the                 the Court has made an order on 24 October 2001 in which it
preamble to Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992                 has ruled as follows:
on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on
mineral oils of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the
structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316,                The application for interim relief is inadmissible.
p. 12), the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
President of Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a            (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
judgment on 22 November 2001, the operative part of which
is as follows:


9.9.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 259/31
       Removal from the register of Case T-85/95 (1)                              Removal from the register of Case T-176/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/55)                                                            (2000/C 259/58)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 June 2000 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the First Chamber
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-85/95:                 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
DIR International Film S.r.l. and Others v Commission of the               has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-176/99
European Communities.                                                      Q. v Council of the European Union.
(1) OJ No C 137 of 3.6.95.                                                 (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
        Removal from the register of Case T-8/98 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-343/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/56)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/59)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 7 June 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber,
Extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the                      By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Fourth Chamber
register of Case T-8/98 Siderca S.A.I.C. v Commission of the               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities.                                                      has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-343/99
                                                                           Hans-Werner Schmidt v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                           munities.
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.
       Removal from the register of Case T-80/98 (1)
                         (2000/C 259/57)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-108/00 R
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (2000/C 259/60)
By order of 21 June 2000 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                    (Language of the case: French)
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-80/98 CIT
Belgique S.A. v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                           By order of 3 July 2000 the President of the First Chamber of
                                                                           the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                 ordered the removal from the register of Case T-108/00
                                                                           R Santiago Gómez-Reino v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 26 March 1996 in Case C-271/94: European Parliament v. Council of the European Union (Council Decision 94/445/EC - Edicom - Telematic networks - Legal basis)

text:
 No C 180/8            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 6 . 96
 3 . Community law does not require a Member State which,             and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive) must
     in transposing Directive 90/531 /EEC into national law,          be interpreted as meaning that social security schemes such
     has itself determined which services of a contracting            as those in issue in the main proceedings are excluded from
     entity are to be excluded from its scope in                      the scope of the Directive.
     implementation of Article 8, to compensate that entity
     for any loss suffered by it as a result of the error
     committed by the State.                                          f 1 ) OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
 (') OJ No C 287, 23 . 10 . 1993 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 26 March 1996
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                      in Case C-271/94: European Parliament v. Council of the
                                                                                European Union ( l )
                       of 26 March 1996
                                                                      (Council Decision 94/445/EC — Edicom — Telematic
 in Case C-238/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                                networks — Legal basis)
 the   Tribunal    des   affaires   de   sécurité   sociale for
                                                                                { 96/ C 180/16 )
 Tarn-et-Garonne ): José Garcia and Others v. Mutuelle de
        prévoyance sociale d'Aquitaine and Others ( 1 )
 (Non-life insurance — Council Directive 92/49/EEC —                                   (Language of the case: French)
                              Scope)
                         ( 96/C 180/15 )
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     In Case C-271/94 , European Parliament ( Agents : Gregorio
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Garzón Clariana, Johann Schoo and José Luis Rufas
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Quintana ), supported by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities ( Agent: Georgios Kremlis ) v. Council of the
                                                                     European Union ( Agents: Antonio Sacchettini and Amadeu
In Case C-238/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177          Lopes Sabino ) — application for the annulment of Council
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité          Decision 94/445/EC of 11 July 1994 on interadministration
sociale ( Social Security Tribunal ) for Tarn-et-Garonne for a       telematic networks for statistics relating to the trading of
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            goods between Member States ( Edicom ) ( OJ No L 183 ,
court between José Garcia and Others v . Mutuelle de                  1994 , p . 42 ) — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez
prévoyance sociale d'Aquitaine and Others — on the                   Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris and G. Hirsch ( Presidents
interpretation of Article 2 ( 2 ) of Council Directive               of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws,               Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann,
regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct         H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón ( Rapporteur), Judges,
insurance other than life assurance and amending Directives          Advocate-General : A. La Pergola, Registrar: H. von
73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC ( third non-life insurance                 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 March
Directive ) ( OJ No L 228 , 1992 , p . 1 ) — the Court,              1996 in which it :
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, D. A. O.
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
Chambers ), F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida            1 . Annuls Council Decision 94/445/EC of 11 July 1 994 on
( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,                 interadministration telematic networks for statistics
P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Tesauro,                               relating to the trading ofgoods between Member States
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                            (Edicom).
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
26 March 1996 , the operative part of which is as
follows :                                                            2 . Maintains the effects of the Commission decisions
                                                                            already adopted pursuant to the annulled decision until
                                                                            such time as a decision adopted on the appropriate legal
Article 2 (2) of Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June                     basis enters into force.
1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other
than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC               3 . Orders the Council to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 6 . 96             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 180/9
4.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs .                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Third Chamber)
(M OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                                                of 28 March 1996
                                                                         in Case C-99/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                         Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz ): Robert Birkenbeul GmbH
                                                                                & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt Koblenz ( J )
                                                                              (Anti-dumping duties on imports of electric motors)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/ 18 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     (Language of tbe case: German)
                           ( Fifth Chamber )
                        of 28 March 1996                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
in Case C-468/93 (reference to the Court for a preliminary
ruling from the Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden ): Gemeente
                                                                         In Case C-99/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      Emmen v. Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen ( 1 )
                                                                         the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz
(Sixth VA TDirective — Article 13B (h) and Article 4 (3) (b)
                                                                         ( Finance Court, Rhineland-Palatinate ), Germany for a
                  — Supply of building land)                             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                             ( 96/C 180/ 17 )                            court between Robert Birkenbeul GmbH & Co . KG v .
                                                                         Hauptzollamt Koblenz on the interpretation of Commission
                                                                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 3019/86 of 30 September 1986
                 (Language of the case: Dutcb)                           imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
                                                                         standardized multiphase electric motors having an output of
                                                                         more than 0,75 kW but not more than 75 kW, originating in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                         Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia , the German Democratic
           published in the European Court Reports)                      Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and the USSR ( OJ No
                                                                         L 280, 1986 , p . 68 ), and of Council Regulation ( EEC )
In Case C-468/93 , reference to the Court under Article 177              No 864/87 of 23 March 1987 imposing a definitive
of the EC Treaty by the Gerechtshof te Leeuwarden                        anti-dumping duty on imports of standardized multiphase
 ( Regional Court of Appeal, Leeuwarden ) (Netherlands ) for             electric motors having an output of more than 0,75 kW but
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              not more than 75 kW, originating in Bulgaria,
court between Gemeente Emmen and Belastingdienst Grote                    Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic,
 Ondernemingen — on the interpretation of the combined                   Hungary, Poland and the Soviet Union, and definitively
provisions of Article 13B ( h ) and Article 4 ( 3 ) ( b ) of the Sixth   collecting the amounts secured as provisional duties ( OJ No
 Council Directive ( 77/38 8/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the                 L 83 , 1987, p . 1 ), the Court ( Third Chamber ), composed of
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to               J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber,
turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax:                       J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges; N.
 uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 ) — the          Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
 Court ( Fifth Chamber ) composed of D. A. O. Edward,                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                         28 March 1996 in which it ruled :
 President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ),
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet,
Judges; Advocate-General : N. Fennelly, Registrar: H. von                 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3019/86 of
 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 March                 30 September 1986 imposing a provisional anti-dumping
  1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :                      duty on imports of standardized multiphase electric motors
                                                                          having an output of more than 0,75 k W but not more than
                                                                          75 kW, originating in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the
 It is for the Member States to define the concept of 'building           German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania
 land' within the meaning of the combined provisions of                   and the USSR, and Council Regulation (EEC) No 864/87 of
 Article 13B (h) and Article 4 (3) (b) of the Sixth Council               23 March 1 987 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
 Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the                             imports of standardized multiphase electric motors having
 harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to               an output of more than 0,75 kW but not more than 75 kW,
 turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax:                       originating in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German
 uniform basis ofassessment. It therefore does not fall to the            Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Soviet
  Court to specify what degree of improvement land which                  Union, and definitively collecting the amounts secured as
 has not been built on must exhibit in order to be categorized            provisional duties, must be interpreted as applying only to
 as building land within the meaning of that Directive.                   imports of standardized, multiphase electric motors which
                                                                          are complete or finished.
  (!) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .


24.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 21/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-135/02 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/54)
Various provisions adopted by several German Länder (con-
forming to the Federal Model Form of a Furnace Regulation of
24 February 1995) are, in the Commission’s view, incompat-                By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Court of
ible with Directive 90/396/EEC on gas-fuelled appliances.                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Those provisions relate to:                                               from the register of Case C-135/02: Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
—      gas boilers with a thermal output of more than 50 kw,
       which may be installed only in separate rooms;
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
—      certain gas boilers which must be equipped with a
       safety device which prevents the concentration of carbon
       monoxide in the air from exceeding 30 ppm; and
—      gas boilers which must be equipped with a device which,
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-142/02 (1)
       in certain circumstances, closes off the gas supply.
                                                                                (2004/C 21/55)
This gives rise to an impediment to the placing on the
market in the Länder concerned of appliances satisfying the
requirements of the Directive because, in those Länder, matters           By order of 15 September 2003 the President of the Court of
already governed by the Directive, such as the installation of            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
appliances only in rooms which do not constitute living space,            from the register of Case C-142/02: Commission of the
protection from the release of unburned gas, risk of explosion,           European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
etc., are subject to additional regulation by national provisions.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
The Federal Republic of Germany takes the view that, having
regard to the public safety of persons and the protection of life
and health of persons against general risks posed by fuel-
burning installations, the Member States are competent to
increase as appropriate the safety levels of such fuel-burning                   Removal from the register of Case C-228/02 (1)
installations on the basis of national building regulations. The
Commission rejects that line of argument, pointing out that,                                      (2004/C 21/56)
in accordance with the ‘New Approach’ concept, the Directive
contains a comprehensive set of rules on the matters covered
by it so that the adoption of additional national provisions              By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Second
governing that area no longer comes into question.                        Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case C-228/02:
(1) OJ 1990 L 196, p. 15.                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                          Luxembourg.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-157/01 P
                        and C-169/01 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-229/02 (1)
                          (2004/C 21/53)                                                          (2004/C 21/57)
By order of 17 July 2003 the President of the Court of Justice            By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
register of Joined Cases C-157/01 P and C-169/01 P: Federal               from the register of Case C-229/02 (Reference for a preliminary
Republic of Germany v RAG Aktiengesellschaft and UK Coal                  ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Tenderer: debis/AC and
v Commission of the European Communities.                                 Others v Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversi-
                                                                          cherungsträger.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001, OJ C 168 of 30.6.2001.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.


title: Case T-418/10: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — voestalpine and voestalpine Wire Rod Austria v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information — Single, complex and continuous infringement — Agency contract — Imputability of the unlawful conduct of the agent to the principal — Lack of knowledge of the agent’s unlawful conduct by the principal — Participation in an aspect of the infringement and awareness of the overall plan — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Proportionality — Principle that penalties must fit the offence — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — voestalpine and voestalpine Wire Rod Austria v Commission
   (Case T-418/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Price fixing, market sharing and exchanging of sensitive commercial information - Single, complex and continuous infringement - Agency contract - Imputability of the unlawful conduct of the agent to the principal - Lack of knowledge of the agent’s unlawful conduct by the principal - Participation in an aspect of the infringement and awareness of the overall plan - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Proportionality - Principle that penalties must fit the offence - Unlimited jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 302/47)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: voestalpine AG (Linz, Austria); and voestalpine Wire Rod Austria GmbH, formerly voestalpine Austria Draht GmbH (Sankt Peter-Freienstein, Austria) (represented by: A. Ablasser-Neuhuber, G. Fussenegger, U. Denzel and M. Mayer, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Sauer, V. Bottka, C. Hödlmayr, Agents, and R. Van der Hout, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment and alteration of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2(5) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010, and by Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011;

               2.

               Reduces the fine imposed jointly and severally on voestalpine AG and voestalpine Wire Rod Austria GmbH from EUR 22 million to EUR 7,5 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs of voestalpine and voestalpine Wire Rod Austria;

               5.

               Orders Voestalpine and voestalpine Wire Rod Austria to bear one third of their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


title: Case C-51/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Löbau by order of that Court of 21 October 2002 in the criminal proceedings against Nicoleta Maria Georgescu

text:
C 112/8                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        10.5.2003
Does an agreement to amend an existing public supply                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
contract, to the effect that different goods are to be supplied        für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of that Court of
from those originally agreed, constitute a public supply               29 January 2003 in the case of Austroplant-Arzneimittel
contract for the purposes of Article 1(a) of Council Directive                       GesmbH against Austrian Republic
93/36/EEC ( 1) of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for
the award of public supply contracts (‘Directive 93/36’) in
respect of which an invitation to tender must be issued where:
                                                                                (Case C-54/03)
1.    the value of the goods to which the amendment relates
      exceeds the de minimis amount referred to in
      Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 93/36 and                                                    (2003/C 112/15)
2.    as regards the goods affected by the amendment, the
      amendment changes both the supplier and, in a material
      way, the specification of those goods?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1.                                       European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für
                                                                       Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Vienna Regional Civil Court) of
                                                                       29 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on 11 February
                                                                       2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Austroplant-
                                                                       Arzneimittel GesmbH against Austrian Republic on the follow-
                                                                       ing questions:
                                                                       1.    Is Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1998
                                                                             relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht                        prices of medicinal products for human use and their
Löbau by order of that Court of 21 October 2002 in the                       inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
   criminal proceedings against Nicoleta Maria Georgescu                     systems (OJ 1989 L 40, 8), apart from the remedy already
                                                                             criticised in the Court’s judgment of 27 November 2001
                                                                             in Case C-424/99 ( 1), to be interpreted as meaning that
                          (Case C-51/03)                                     the national provisions set out below are incompatible
                                                                             therewith?
                         (2003/C 112/14)                                     The national implementing provisions concerned are
                                                                             Paragraph 31(3)(12) ASVG in the version published in
                                                                             BGBl I 99/2001 and the Procedure for the compilation
                                                                             of the register of medicinal products under Para-
                                                                             graph 31(3)(12) ASVG (VOHMV), Soziale Sicherheit 11/
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       1998, Amtliche Verlautbarung No 104/1998.
European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Löbau
(Local Court, Löbau) of 21 October 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 10 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling           2.    If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
in the criminal proceedings against Nicoleta Maria Georgescu
on the following question on the following point of interpret-
                                                                             Is Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1998
ation of Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March
                                                                             relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
2001 (1):
                                                                             prices of medicinal products for human use and their
                                                                             inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
                                                                             systems so precise, clear and definite that the national
Must Article 1(2) in conjunction with Article 8(2) and Annex II              legislator has no scope for discretion when transposing it
of the above regulation be interpreted as meaning that as from               into national law?
the entry into force of that regulation Romanian nationals
now only for a specified time require a visa for entry and stay
in Member States of the European Community for a period                3.    If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
not exceeding three months?
                                                                             Is Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1998
                                                                             relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
( 1) OJ L 81 of 21.3.2001, p. 1.                                             prices of medicinal products for human use and their
                                                                             inclusion in the scope of national health insurance
                                                                             systems intended to confer a direct right on the applicant
                                                                             in the proceedings in the main case in this instance?


title: Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/10, T-438/12 to T-441/12: Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for prestressing steel — Price fixing, market sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Economic unit — Direct participation in the infringement — Secondary liability of parent companies — Succession of undertakings — Complex infringement — Single and continuous infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principle of non-retroactivity and principle that penalties must be lawful — Mitigating circumstances — Ability to pay — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Request for reconsideration — No change in the factual circumstances — Letter of rejection — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 — Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/10, T-438/12 to T-441/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for prestressing steel - Price fixing, market sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Economic unit - Direct participation in the infringement - Secondary liability of parent companies - Succession of undertakings - Complex infringement - Single and continuous infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of non-retroactivity and principle that penalties must be lawful - Mitigating circumstances - Ability to pay - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Request for reconsideration - No change in the factual circumstances - Letter of rejection - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 260/47)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA (Gijón, Spain) (Cases T-426/10 and T-440/12); Trefilerías Quijano, SA (Los Corrales de Buelna, Spain) (Cases T-427/10 and T-439/12); Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, SL (Santander, Spain) (Cases T-428/10 and T-441/12) (represented by: in Cases T-426/10 to T-429/10, F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, and, in Cases T-438/12 to T-441/12, initially by F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, and subsequently by F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: in Cases T-426/10, T-427/10, T-429/10 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, V. Bottka, F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents, and by L. Ortiz Blanco and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers, and, in Case T-428/10, by V. Bottka and F. Castillo de la Torre, and by L. Ortiz Blanco and A. Lamadrid de Pablo)

      Re:

   Application for annulment and variation of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final of 30 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38344 — Prestressing Steel), as amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010 and Commission Decision C(2011) 2269 final of 4 April 2011, and also by the letter of 25 July 2012 from the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Competition of the Commission.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías, SA, Trefilerías Quijano, SA, Trenzas y Cables de Acero PSC, SL and Global Steel Wire, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 March 2003 in Case C-378/01: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Special protection areas — Conservation of wild birds)

text:
C 112/6                     EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                10.5.2003
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                             (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                             of 20 March 2003
                                                                                of 13 March 2003
in Case C-378/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                         ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                in Case C-436/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium ( 1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
79/409/EEC — Special protection areas — Conservation of
                                 wild birds)                                    (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 98/81/EC — Failure to transpose within the
                                                                                prescribed period)
                              (2003/C 112/10)
                        (Language of the case: Italian)                                                     (2003/C 112/11)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                       in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-378/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agents: U. Leanza and M. Fiorilli): Application for a declar-
ation that, by failing to classify as special protection areas the
most suitable territories, in number and size, for the protection
of those species mentioned in Annex I to Council Directive                      In Case C-436/01, Commission of the European Communities
79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds                    (Agent: H. van Lier) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx):
(OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), as subsequently amended, and of the                      Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, within
other migratory species which regularly occur in Italy, and by                  the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrat-
failing to send to the Commission all necessary information                     ive provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/
relevant to most of the said areas classified by it, the Italian                81/EC of 26 October 1998 amending Directive 90/219/EEC
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1)                on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms
to (3) of that directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                   (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 13), or, in any event, by failing to notify
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and                the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of Belgium
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges;                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court
P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,                (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 March 2003, in                    the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;
which it:                                                                       F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                                judgment on 13 March 2003, in which it:
1.     Declares that, by failing to classify as special protection areas
       the most suitable territories, in number and size, for the               1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
       protection of those species mentioned in Annex I to Council                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of                    comply with Council Directive 98/81/EC of 26 October 1998
       wild birds, as subsequently amended, and of the other migratory                amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of
       species which regularly occur in Italy, and by failing to send to              genetically modified micro-organisms, the Kingdom of Belgium
       the Commission all necessary information relevant to most of                   has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
       the said areas classified by it, the Italian Republic has failed to
       fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) to (3) of that directive;
                                                                                2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                (1 ) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.
( 1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.


title: Case T-623/11: Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014  — Pico Food v OHIM — Sobieraj (MILANÓWEK CREAM FUDGE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community trade mark MILANÓWEK CREAM FUDGE — Earlier national figurative marks representing a cow, Original Sahne Muh-Muhs HANDGESCHNITTEN HANDGEWICKELT and SAHNE TOFFEE LUXURY CREAM FUDGE — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 April 2014 — Pico Food v OHIM — Sobieraj (MILANÓWEK CREAM FUDGE)
   (Case T-623/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community trade mark MILANÓWEK CREAM FUDGE - Earlier national figurative marks representing a cow, Original Sahne Muh-Muhs HANDGESCHNITTEN HANDGEWICKELT and SAHNE TOFFEE LUXURY CREAM FUDGE - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 175/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pico Food GmbH (Tamm, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Vuijst and P. Geroulakos, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bogumił Sobieraj (Milanówek, Poland) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2011 (Case R 553/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between PICO Food GmbH and Bogumił Sobieraj.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Pico Food GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4. 2. 2012.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt, by order of that court of 25 November 1996 in the review proceedings brought by the applicant, EvoBus Austria GmbH, against the contracting entity, Niederösterreichische Verkehrsorganisations Gesellschaft mbH (NÖVOG) (Case C-111/97)

text:
10 . 5 . 97           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 142/ 13
     transposing measure merely that those provisions                  ( Federal Procurement Office ) of 25 November 1996,
     remain in force to the extent that they do not conflict           which was received at the Court Registry on 17 March
     with the new national legislation ?                               1997, for a preliminary ruling in the review proceedings
                                                                       brought by the applicant, EvoBus Austria GmbH, against
                                                                       the contracting entity, Niederosterreichische Verkehrsorga
2 . Do Articles 10 ( 2 ) and 15 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 89/
                                                                       nisations Gesellschaft mbH (NOVOG ), on the following
     398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the                 questions:
     laws of the Member States relating to foodstuffs
     intended for particular nutritional uses ( OJ No L 186,
     30 . 6 . 1989, p. 27) authorize a State to continue to
     apply rules which predate the Directive and the                   1 . May an individual derive, from the abovemen
     measure transposing it ?                                                 tioned (') or other provisions of Directive 92/13/EEC,
                                                                              a specific right to have review proceedings conducted
                                                                              before authorities or courts or tribunals complying
3 . Does the classification, by Council Directive 89/398/                     with Article 2 ( 9 ) of Directive 92/13/EEC which is so
     EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the laws                       sufficiently precise and specific that, in the event of
     of the Member States, of foodstuffs intended for                         non-transposition by a Member State of the provisions
     particular nutritional uses into nine groups ( referred to               of the Directive in question, an individual may rely on
     in Annex I thereto ), which are to be the subject of                     that provision ?
     specific directives, and into foodstuffs not falling
     within those groups, for which there is no provision
     for such directives, allow a Member State to apply                2 . In conducting a review procedure, must a national
     rules founded on a classification based on a distinction                 court constituted on the lines of the Bundesvergabeamt
     between dietary products and dietetic products or on a                   disregard provisions of national law such as
     distinction between foodstuffs for infants and young                     paragraph 7 (2 ) in conjunction with paragraph 67 ( 1 )
     children and foodstuffs other than those intended for                    of the Bundesvergabegesetz (Federal Procurement
     infants and young children ?                                             Law ) which preclude it from conducting a review
                                                                              procedure even where such review procedure is
4 . Do Articles 10 ( 2 ) and 15 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 89/                intended by the national legislature solely to serve the
     398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation of the                        purpose of transposing Directive 89/665/EEC (2 )?
     laws of the Member States relating to foodstuffs
     intended for particular nutritional uses, which do not
     affect the application of national measures in the event          3 . Must the adjudicating court disregard those or any
     that specific directives as provided for in Article 4 of                 comparable procedural provisions of national law in
     the Directive are not adopted, preclude individuals                      such circumstances, if they impede or prevent a review
     from relying on the provisions of the Directive in                       procedure from being effectively conducted ?
     order to challenge the detailed measures of
     transposition adopted by the Member States and to                 (') Article 1 ( 1 ) to ( 3 ) and Article 2 ( 1 ) and 2 ( 7) to ( 9 ) of
     have them declared inapplicable by the national courts                  Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992
     to the extent that they conflict with the provisions of                 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative
     the Directive ?                                                         provisions relating to the application of Community rules on
                                                                             the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,
                                                                             energy, transport and telecommunications sectors ( OT No L 76 ,
5.   Does not the fact that foodstuffs are controlled within                 23 . 3 . 1992 , p. 14 ).
     the framework of Community Directives imply that                  ( 2 ) Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
     States must, when carrying out such control, observe                    coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
     the general Community principles, in particular the                     provisions relating to the application of review procedures to
     protection of legitimate expectations ?                                 the award of public supply and public works contracts ( OJ No
                                                                             L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p. 33 ).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesvergabeamt, by order of that court of 25 November                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
1996 in the review proceedings brought by the applicant,               Travail, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of 18 March
EvoBus Austria GmbH, against the contracting entity,                         1997 in the case of Henia Babahenini v. Belgian State
Niederosterreichische Verkehrsorganisations Gesellschaft
                                                                                Case C-l 13/97
                        mbH (NOVOG )
                        ( Case C-l 11 /97 )                                                           ( 97/C 142/28 )
                          ( 97/C 142/27
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal du
European Communities by order of the Bundesvergabeamt                  Travail ( Labour Court), Charleroi, of 18 March 1997,