title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 June 1998 in Case C-243/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Labour Court): Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton v the Revenue Commissioners and Department of Finance (Equal treatment of men and women - National civil servants - Job-sharing scheme - Incremental credit determined on the basis of the criterion of actual time worked - Indirect discrimination)

text:
C 258/10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.8.98
Community       and   the   Socialist  Federal   Republic    of                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Yugoslavia.
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
( ) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.
 1
                                                                                of 17 June 1998
                                                                     in Case C-243/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Labour Court): Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton v the
                                                                        Revenue Commissioners and Department of Finance (1)
                                                                     (Equal treatment of men and women Ð National civil
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 servants Ð Job-sharing scheme Ð Incremental credit
                       of 16 June 1998                               determined on the basis of the criterion of actual time
                                                                                worked Ð Indirect discrimination)
in Case C-226/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Maastricht): criminal                                        (98/C 258/18)
    proceedings against Johannes Martinus Lemmens (1)
(Directive 83/189/EEC Ð Procedure for the provision of
information in the field of technical standards and
        regulations Ð Direct effect of the Directive)                               (Language of the case: English)
                        (98/C 258/17)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                        In Case C-243/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty by the Labour Court (Ireland) for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       tribunal between Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton and the
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Revenue Commissioners, Department of Finance Ð on the
                                                                     interpretation of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of
                                                                     10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the
In Case C-226/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           Member States relating to the application of the principle
of the EC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank                   of equal pay for men and women (OJ L 45 of 19.2.1975,
(District Court) Maastricht (Netherlands) for a                      p. 19) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that           Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F.
Court against Johannes Martinus Lemmens Ð on the                     Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch,
interpretation of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of                    Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
of information in the field of technical standards and               17 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
regulations (OJ L 109 of 26.4.1983, p. 8) Ð the Court,
composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the
Third and Fifth Chambers, acting for the President, G. F.
Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
                                                                     Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Council Directive 75/
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly,
                                                                     117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                     the laws of the Member States relating to the application
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                     of the principle of equal pay for men and women are to
16 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                     be interpreted as precluding legislation which provides
                                                                     that, where a much higher percentage of female workers
                                                                     than male workers are engaged in job-sharing, job-sharers
Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying
                                                                     who convert to full-time employment are given a point on
down a procedure for the provision of information in the
                                                                     the pay scale applicable to full-time staff which is lower
field of technical standards and regulations is to be
                                                                     than that which those workers previously occupied on the
interpreted as meaning that breach of the obligation
                                                                     pay scale applicable to job-sharing staff due to the fact
imposed by Article 8 thereof to notify a technical
                                                                     that the employer has applied the criterion of service
regulation on breath-analysis apparatus does not have the
                                                                     calculated by the actual length of time worked in a post,
effect of making it impossible for evidence obtained by
                                                                     unless such legislation can be justified by objective criteria
means of such apparatus, authorised in accordance with
                                                                     unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.
regulations which have not been notified, to be relied
upon against an individual charged with driving while
under the influence of alcohol.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 229 of 2.9.1995.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.


title: Case T-131/17: Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Argus Security Projects v Commission and EEAS

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/28

         Action brought on 2 March 2017 — Argus Security Projects v Commission and EEAS
   (Case T-131/17)
   (2017/C 129/42)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Argus Security Projects Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission, European External Action Service

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the set-off decision of the Commission in the sum of EUR 52 600, contained in its letter of 13 February 2017;

               —

               annul the set-off decision of the Commission, acting on behalf of the EEAS accounting officer, in the sum of EUR 41 522, contained in its letter of 15 February 2017;

               —

               annul the set-off decision of the Commission, acting on behalf of the EEAS accounting officer, in the sum of EUR 6 324, contained in its letter of 28 February 2017;

               —

               order the European Commission and the EEAS to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). The applicant claims that the adoption of the contested unilateral set-off decisions within a contractual context, where the other party to the contract brought an action for breach of contract before the court having jurisdictio as designated by the contract, must be regarded as unlawful and contrary to Article 47 of the Charter.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the European Commission and the European External Action Service (EEAS) lack authority to adopt the set-off decisions within a contractual context. The defendants exceeded their powers by using unilateral powers in order to bring a contractual dispute to an end, and the contested decisions should therefore be annulled on the ground that the adopting institution had no power to issue them.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 80 of Regulation No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (‘the Financial Regulation’). The applicant submits that, since the proceedings before the Belgian court are still pending, the Commission’s accounting officer could not lawfully treat the debt at issue as certain, of a fixed amount and due. The Commission therefore did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 80 of the Financial Regulation and thus could not be compensated.


title: Case T-362/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — Minin v Commission (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures in respect of Liberia — Freezing of funds of persons associated with Charles Taylor — Competence of the Community — Fundamental rights — Action for annulment)

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2007 — Minin v Commission
   (Case T-362/04) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of Liberia - Freezing of funds of persons associated with Charles Taylor - Competence of the Community - Fundamental rights - Action for annulment)
   (2007/C 69/42)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Leonid Minin (Tel-Aviv, Israel) (represented by: T. Ballarino and C. Bovio, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti, L. Visaggio and C. Brown, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by S. Marquardt and F. Ruggeri Laderchi, and subsequently by S. Marquardt and A. Vitro, Agents); and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by R. Caudwell, and subsequently by E. Jenkinson, Agents)
   Re:
   Originally, annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1149/2004 of 22 June 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 872/2004 concerning further restrictive measures in relation to Liberia (OJ 2004 L 222, p. 17), and, subsequently, annulment in part of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2005 of 9 June 2005 amending Regulation No 872/2004 (OJ 2005 L 146, p. 5).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear, in addition to his own costs, those of the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Council and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case T-286/11 P: Order of the General Court of 15 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Non-contractual liability — Compensation for the damage resulting from the fact that a letter concerning the costs in a case was sent to the lawyer who represented the appellant in that case — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/36

         Order of the General Court of 15 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-286/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Non-contractual liability - Compensation for the damage resulting from the fact that a letter concerning the costs in a case was sent to the lawyer who represented the appellant in that case - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2013/C 9/65
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 16 March 2011 in Case F-21/10 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 1998 in Case C-353/96: Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public supply contracts - Review procedures - Definition of contracting authority)

text:
C 48/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20.2.1999
so far as that provision requires milk deliveries actually to                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
be resumed before 29 March 1990.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( ) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
 1
                                                                                of 17 December 1998
                                                                            in Case C-353/96: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Ireland (1)
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Ð Public
                                                                     supply contracts Ð Review procedures Ð Definition of
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      contracting authority)
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/08)
                    of 17 December 1998
in Case C-186/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Stefan Demand v. Hauptzollamt
                            Trier (1)                                                 (Language of the case: English)
(Milk Ð Additional levy scheme Ð Additional reference
quantity Ð Temporary withdrawal Ð Conversion into a
definitive reduction Ð Loss of compensation Ð General
          principles of law and fundamental rights)                  In Case C-353/96: Commission of the European
                        (1999/C 48/07)                               Communities (Agent: Richard Wainwright) v. Ireland
                                                                     (Agent: Michael A. Buckley, assisted by Eoghan
                                                                     Fitzsimons and Feargal ÓDubhghaill) Ð application for a
               (Language of the case: German)                        declaration that, by failing to comply with the provisions
                                                                     of Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976
                                                                     coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       contracts (OJ L 13, 15.1.1977, p. 1), as amended by
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Directive 88/295/EEC (OJ L 127, 20.5.1988, p. 1), and in
                                                                     particular by failing to publish its invitation to tender for
                                                                     the supply of fertiliser on behalf of Coillte Teoranta (The
In Case C-186/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           Irish Forestry Board Limited) in the Official Journal of the
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany for               European Communities, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before               obligations under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth
that court between Stefan Demand and Hauptzollamt                    Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Trier Ð on the validity of the first paragraph of Article 3          Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
and Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92              Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber,
of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in               Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
the milk and milk products sector (OJ L 405, 31.12.1992,             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G.                   17 December 1998, in which it:
Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. F. Mancini,
H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
                                                                     1. Declares that, since Coillte Teoranta failed to have a
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                          notice of tender for a contract for the supply of
judgment on 17 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                          fertiliser published in the Official Journal of the
                                                                          European Communities, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
Consideration of the general principles of Community law,                 obligations under Council Directive 77/62/EEC of
and in particular the principles of the protection of                     21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the
legitimate expectations and of the fundamental right to                   award of public supply contracts, as amended by
property, has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to                    Directive 88/295/EEC.
affect the validity of the first paragraph of Article 3 and
Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of
28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the
milk and milk products sector in so far as they converted,           2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
without compensation, temporary suspension of a
percentage of the additional reference quantity granted in
return for payment into a definitive reduction.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
(1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.


title: Case C-617/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v Giovanna Castellano and Others

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 28 November 2016 — Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri v Giovanna Castellano and Others
   (Case C-617/16)
   (2017/C 063/23)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Respondents and cross-appellants: Giovanna Castellano, Maria Concetta Pandolfo, Antonio Marletta, Vito Mannino, Olga Gagliardo, Emilio Nardi, Maria Catania, Massimo Gallucci, Giovanna Pischedda, Giambattista Gagliardo

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Directive 82/76, (1) which amended Directives 75/362 (2) and 75/363, (3) to be interpreted as including within its scope full-time and part-time courses for trainee medical specialists which had already begun by 31 December 1982 and continued after that date, that being the date by which the Member States were to have adopted the necessary measures to comply with the directive, in accordance with Article 16 thereof?
               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative,

               2.

               Is the annex appended to the ‘coordination’ directive (Directive 75/363) by Article 13 of Directive 82/76, which amended Directives 75/362 and 75/363, to be interpreted as meaning that, with respect to specialist training courses which had already begun by 31 December 1982, the obligation to provide trainee specialists with adequate remuneration is dependent on fulfilment of the obligation to reorganise courses or on compliance with the requirements of the abovementioned directives?

               3.

               With respect to specialist doctors who pursued specialist training courses which began before 1 January 1983 but had not ended by that date, was there any obligation to pay them adequate remuneration for the entire duration of the course or for the period after 31 December 1982 alone and, if so, to what conditions, if any, was that obligation subject?

      (1)  Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services and Directive 75/363/EEC concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors (OJ 1982 L 43, p. 21).

      (2)  Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1975 L 167, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors (OJ 1975 L 167, p. 14).


title: Case T-423/07: Action brought on 15 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/28

         Action brought on 15 November 2007 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-423/07)
   (2008/C 8/50)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: E. Vahida, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               To declare in accordance with Article 232 EC that the Commission has failed to act pursuant to its obligations under the EC Treaty by not having defined a position with respect to the applicant's complaint lodged with the Commission on 3 November 2005 followed by a letter of formal notice of 31 July 2007;

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the entire costs, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings even if, following the bringing of the action, the Commission takes action which in the opinion of the Court removes the need to give a decision or if the Court dismisses the application as inadmissible;

               —

               take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant claims that the Commission has failed to act by not having defined its position, after having been invited to do so under Article 232 EC, on the basis of a complaint filed by the applicant on 3 November 2005, regarding unlawful State aid granted to Lufthansa and its Star Alliance partners through the exclusive use of Terminal 2 of Munich Airport or, in the alternative, anti-competitive discrimination in favour of Lufthansa and its Star Alliance partners, should it be considered that the Munich Airport acted autonomously. The reservation of this Terminal by Munich Airport to the applicant's potential competitors would constitute an abuse of dominance and hence infringement of Article 82 EC.
   In support of its first plea, the applicant submits that the Commission was under a duty to carry out a diligent and impartial examination of the complaint in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) 659/1999 (1), Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) 773/2004 (3), in order to either adopt a decision declaring that the State measures did not amount to aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, or that those measures were to be classified as aid within the meaning of the said provision but were compatible with the common market under Article 87(2) and (3) EC, or to initiate a procedure under Article 88(2) EC.
   In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission was required, upon receipt of its subsidiary complaint relating to an alleged abuse of dominance, either to initiate a procedure regarding the subject of the complaint or to adopt a definitive decision rejecting the complaint, after having given the complainant the opportunity to comment.
   The applicant further submits that the period of twenty months which elapsed between the applicant's complaint and its letter of formal notice was unreasonably long, and the inaction of the Commission during that period constitutes failure to act within the meaning of Article 232 EC.

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

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 1, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L 123, p. 18).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht, by order of that court of 30 March 1995, in the case of the Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung v. Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH (Case C-272/95)

text:
No C 248/12           EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23 . 9 . 95
    stating which of such dates is applicable with regard to                     and continue to supply sufficient quantities to
    such acts;                                                                   satisfy the needs of domestic patients; and/or
                                                                           (c ) that country's legislation grants to its authorities,
2.  that the provisions and effect of Article 209 of the                         and its authorities exercise, the right to fix the
    Portuguese Treaty of Accession of the European                               sale price of the Pharmaceutical in that country
    Communities will continue to apply to                                        and legislation prohibits the sale of the
    pharmaceutical products                                                      Pharmaceutical at any other price; and/or
2.1 imported from Portugal; or                                             ( d ) the price of the Pharmaceutical in that country
                                                                                has been fixed by its authorities at a level at which
2.2 first marketed in Portugal;                                                  substantial exports of the Pharmaceutical from
    until
                                                                                such country to the Member State are anticipated
                                                                                with the result that the economic value of the
    ( a ) 1 January 1995 ; or                                                    Patent would be significantly eroded and research
                                                                                and development for future pharmaceuticals
    ( b ) 31 December 1995 ; or                                                  planned by the Proprietor significantly
                                                                                undermined, contrary to the rationale underlying
    ( c ) 1 June 1998 ; or                                                       the recent introduction by the EC Council of the
    ( d ) 31 December 1998 ; or
                                                                                Supplementary Protection Certificate .
    ( e ) the end of the third year after the particular
            pharmaceutical, protected by a product patent in
            one or more Member State(s ) of the European
            Union and which was previously unpatentable in
            Portugal , has become patentable in Portugal
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwal
    stating which of such dates is applicable with regard to       tungsgericht, by order of that court of 30 March 1995 , in the
    such acts;                                                     case      of   the   Bundesanstalt    fur Landwirtschaft         und
                                                                            Ernahrung v. Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH
3.  after the expiration of Article 47 ( and/or Article 209 ,                                ( Case C-2 72/95 )
     as appropriate ), in a case where :
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/25 )
3.1  an undertaking is the proprietor (the 'Proprietor') of a
     patent ( the 'Patent') in one or more Member States of        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     the European Communities ( the 'Member State') for a          European Communities by an order of the Bundesverwal
     pharmaceutical product ( the 'Pharmaceutical');               tungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court) of 30 March
                                                                   1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
3.2  the Pharmaceutical was first put on the market in a           11 August 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of the
     country by the Proprietor after that country's                Bundesanstalt fur Landwirtschaft und Ernahrung v.
     accession to the EC but at a time when the                    Deutsches Milch-Kontor GmbH on the following
     Pharmaceutical could not be protected by a product            questions :
     patent in that country;
                                                                    1 . is the first subparagraph of Article 2 ( 4 ) of Regulation
3.3  a third party imports the Pharmaceutical from that                 ( EEC ) No 1624/76 ( ] ), as amended by Article 1 of
     country into the Member State;                                     Regulation (EEC) No 1726/79 (2), to be interpreted as
                                                                        meaning that, where skimmed-milk powder produced in
3.4  and the patent legislation in the Member State granted             Germany is exported by lorry to Italy for use in the
     the proprietor of the Patent the right to oppose by legal          manufacture of compound feedingstuffs, the competent
     action the importation of the Pharmaceutical from                  authority is required to take a sample from each lorry
     that country                                                       load and have it analyzed in order to be able to issue the
                                                                        certificate referred to in the provision ?
     do the rules set forth in the EC Treaty concerning the
     free movement of goods prevent the Proprietor from             2 . if question 1 should be answered in the negative, what
     availing himself of the right referred to in paragraph             criteria are to be drawn from Article 2 ( 1 ) ( a ) of
     3.4 above, in particular if:                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1624/76, as amended by Article 1
      ( a ) the Proprietor had and continues to have a legal            of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1726/79 in conjunction with
                                                                        Article 10 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1725/79 ( 3 ) for the
            and/or ethical obligation to market and to
            continue marketing the Pharmaceutical in that               purpose of determining the frequency with which
                                                                        samples must and may be taken in the case of
            country; and/or
                                                                         skimmed-milk powder exported by lorry to Italy ?
      ( b ) that country's and/or EC legislation effectively
            requires that, once the Pharmaceutical is put on        3 . is it compatible with the prohibition of charges having
            the market in that country, the Proprietor supply            an effect equivalent to customs duties ( Articles 9 , 12 and
 ---pagebreak--- 23 . 9 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 248/ 13
      16 of the EEC Treaty ), the prohibition of discrimination         Kingdom of Spain v. Commission of the European
      ( Article 95 of the EEC Treaty) and other provisions of           Communities .
      Community law to make the exporter bear the full costs
      under national law of regular or occasional analyses ?            (') OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
(>) OJ No L 180 , 6 . 7 . 1976 , p . 9 .
(2 ) OJ No L 199 , 7. 8 . 1979 , p . 10 .
( 3 ) OJ No L 199 , 7. 8 . 1979 , p . 1 .                                        Removal from the register of Case C-95/94 ( J )
                                                                                ( 95/C 248/29 )
                                                                        By order of 1 1 July 1995 the President of the Sixth Chamber
                                                                        of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
        Removal from the register of Case C-l 80/94 ( )                 ordered the removal from the register of Case C-95/94 :
                            ( 95/C 248 /26 )                            Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
                                                                        Spain.
By order of 12 June 1995 the President of the Sixth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities                     (') OJ No C 161 , 11 . 6 . 1994 .
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-l 80/94 :
Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic
Republic .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-471/93
 (') OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .                                                              and Case C-47/94 (M
                                                                                ( 95/C 248 /30 )
                                                                        By order of 1 4 July 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
         Removal from the register of Case C-67/92 (*)                  register of Case C-471 /93 and Case C-47/94 : United
                            ( 95/C 248/27 )                             Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v.
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, supported by
 By order of 30 June 1995 the President of the Court of                 the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic and the Hellenic
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Republic .
 from the register of Case C-67/92 ( reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance                 (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 and
 de Rennes): Societe l'Hexagone v. Societe des Auteurs,                        OJ No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
 Compositeurs et Editeurs de Musique ( SACEM ).
 O OJ No C 86 , 7. 4 . 1992 .
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-154/94 ( )
                                                                                95/C 248/31
                                                                         By order of 14 July 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
         Removal from the register of Case C-53/94 ( )                   of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                             ( 95/C 248/28 )                             register of Case C-154/94 ( reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin ): Bahar Kockaya v.
  By order of 1 1 July 1 995 the President of the Fifth Chamber          Bundesanstalt fiir Arbeit.
  of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
  ordered the removal from the register of Case C-53/94 :                t 1 ) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .


title: Case T-163/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 October 2008 — S.C. Gerovital Cosmetics v OHIM — S.C. Farmec (GEROVITAL H3 Prof. Dr. A. Aslan) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 October 2008 — S.C. Gerovital Cosmetics v OHIM — S.C. Farmec (GEROVITAL H3 Prof. Dr. A. Aslan)
   (Case T-163/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)
   (2009/C 19/56)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: S.C. Gerovital Cosmetics S.A. (Ilfov County, Romania) (represented by: D. Boștină, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: S.C. Farmec S.A. (Cluj Napoca, Romania) (represented by: G. Turcu and M. Rosu, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 February 2007 (Case R 271/2006-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between S.C. Farmec S.A. and S.C. Gerovital Cosmetics S.A.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2.

               S.C. Gerovital Cosmetics S.A. and S.C. Farmec S.A. shall each bear their own costs and half of those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case T-771/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Grant agreement concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) — Doc@Hand project — Eligible costs — Counterclaim — Repayment of amounts paid — Default interest)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — ANKO v Commission
   (Case T-771/14) (1)

   ((Arbitration clause - Grant agreement concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) - Doc@Hand project - Eligible costs - Counterclaim - Repayment of amounts paid - Default interest))
   (2017/C 070/22)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and P. Arenas, acting as Agents, and by O. Lytra, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, application based on Article 272 TFUE and seeking a declaration that the Commission’s demand for reimbursement of an amount paid to the applicant under agreement No 508015 to fund the project entitled ‘Knowledge Sharing and Decision Support for Healthcare Professionals’, concluded under the Sixth Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2002-2006) is unfounded, and, secondly, a counterclaim seeking an order against the applicant for repayment of an amount wrongfully paid under that agreement.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action brought by ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is dismissed;

               2.

               ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay to the European Commission the amount of EUR 296 149,77, plus default interest from 3 May 2014 and until full payment of that amount, at the rate of 3,75 %;

               3.

               ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of 4 July 2000 in Case C-219/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords): Regina v Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Directive 77/93/EEC — Issue of phytosanitary certificates by a non-member country other than the country of origin of the plants — Produce originating in the part of Cyprus to the north of the United Nations Buffer Zone)

text:
C 302/8                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          21.10.2000
19 May 1981, so as to provide for fair, free and non-                        (United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
discriminatory access by all Community nationals to the cargo-               pending before that court between Regina and Minister for
shares due to the Portuguese Republic, as provided for in                    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte S.P. Anastasiou
Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986                      (Pissouri) Ltd and Others, interveners: Cypfruvex (UK) Ltd and
applying the principle of freedom to provide services to                     Cypfruvex Fruit and Vegetable (Cypfruvex) Enterprises Ltd —
maritime transport between Member States and between                         on the interpretation of Council Directive 77/93/EEC of
Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1), the                 21 December 1976 on protective measures against the intro-
Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               duction into the Community of organisms harmful to plants
Articles 3 and 4(1) thereof — the Court composed of: G.C. Ro-                or plant products and against their spread within the Com-
drı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,                      munity (OJ 1977 L 26, p. 20), as amended, inter alia,by Council
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presi-               Directive 91/683/EEC of 19 December 1991 (OJ 1991 L 376,
dents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,                 p. 29) and Commission Directive 92/103/EEC of 1 December
P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; M.J. Mischo,                  1992 (OJ 1992 L 363, p. 1) — the Court, composed of:
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given               G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón
a judgment on 4 July 2000, in which it:                                      and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
                                                                             C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, Rapporteur, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,
1.    Declares that, by failing either to denounce or to adjust the          M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; Advocate General: N. Fen-
      agreement on merchant shipping with the Federal Republic of            nelly; Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judg-
      Yugoslavia so as to provide for fair, free and non-discriminatory      ment on 4 July 2000, in which it has ruled:
      access by all Community nationals to the cargo-shares due to
      the Portuguese Republic, as provided for in Council Regulation
      (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the                      1.    Council Directive 77/93/EEC of 21 December 1976 on
      principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport               protective measures against the introduction into the Com-
      between Member States and between Member States and third                    munity of organisms harmful to plants or plant products and
      countries, the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations          against their spread within the Community, as amended,
      under Articles 3 and 4(1) of that regulation;                                permits Member States to admit into their territory plants
                                                                                originating in a non-member country, which are subject to the
                                                                                issue of a phytosanitary certificate dealing, inter alia,with
2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                             compliance with special requirements, where, in the absence of
                                                                                a certificate issued by the authorities empowered to issue
                                                                                certificates in the plants’ country of origin, the plants are
(1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.                                                         accompanied by a certificate issued in a non-member country
                                                                                from which they do not originate, provided that:
                                                                                —      the plants have been imported into the territory of the
                                                                                country where checks have taken place before being
                                                                                exported from there to the Community;
                                                                                —      the plants have remained in that country for such time
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   and under such conditions as to enable the proper checks
                                                                                to be completed, and
                           of 4 July 2000
                                                                                —      the plants are not subject to special requirements that can
in Case C-219/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                 only be satisfied in their place of origin.
the House of Lords): Regina v Minister for Agriculture,
                       Fisheries and Food (1)
                                                                             2.    It is not for the Member State concerned to take account of the
                                                                                reasons for which a phytosanitary certificate has not been issued
(Directive 77/93/EEC — Issue of phytosanitary certificates
                                                                                in the country of origin of the plants in determining whether
by a non-member country other than the country of origin of
                                                                                the certificate complies with the requirements of Directive
the plants — Produce originating in the part of Cyprus to
                                                                                77/93, as amended.
         the north of the United Nations Buffer Zone)
                          (2000/C 302/14)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                    (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-219/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the House of Lords


title: Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-165/96)

text:
20 . 7 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 210/5
Appeal by Konstantinos Dimitriadis against the judgment               Moreover, the Court of First Instance, in examining in detail
delivered on 28 February 1996 by the Court of First Instance          the reasoning of the decision of the Court of Auditors of
of the European Communities in Case T-294/94 K.                       1 July 1994, which constituted the subject-matter of the
Dimitriadis v. Court of Auditors of the European                      action, infringed the appellant's rights of defence because it
                        Communities ( 1 )                             did not order evidence to the adduced and did not give him
                      ( Case C-140/96 P)                              the opportunity of proving the truth of his claims .
                         ( 96/C 210/09 )                              Lastly, the appellant maintains that the grounds given for
                                                                      the decision of the Court of First Instance as to costs are
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 February               inadequate .
1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-294/94 between K. Dimitriadis and               (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
the Court of Auditors of the European Communities was
lodged on 21 April 1996 by Konstantinos Dimitriadis,
formerly an official of the Court of Auditors of
the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Marcos Papazisis of the Thessaloniki Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the appellant's          Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the
address, 4A boulevard G. -D. Charlotte , L-1330 .                      European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-165 /96
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should :                                         ( 96/C 210/ 10
— order the Registrar of the Court of First Instance to join          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
    to the pleadings in this appeal the minutes of the oral           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    procedure of 8 February 1996 , with the pleadings of the          14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European
    parties ' lawyers, and the transcript of the testimony of         Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
    the witness Mr F. before the Fifth Chamber of the Court           acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    of First Instance in Case T-326/94 Dimitriadis v . Court          at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
    of Auditors on 11 January 1 996 ,                                 Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
— set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal             The applicant claims that the Court should :
    of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ) of
    28 February 1 996 in Case T-294/94 Dimitriadis v . Court        - — declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,
    of Auditors ,                                                         regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                          comply with Commission Directive 91 /410/EEC of
— admit the appeal and examine it as to the merits,                       22 July 1991 adapting to technical progress for the
                                                                           14th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the
— order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal and                 approximation of laws, regulations and administrative
     of the action brought before the Court of First                      provisions relating to the classification, packaging and
     Instance .                                                           labelling of dangerous substances ('), the Portuguese
                                                                          Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                          third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Article 2 of Directive 91 /410/EEC,
The appellant puts forward eight grounds of appeal relating           — declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform the
to procedural defects and infringements of Community                       Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese
law.                                                                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                           same provisions ,
In particular he maintains that the Court of First Instance
did not take account of the pleas put forward in the course           — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
of the oral procedure , because they could not be put forward
earlier as part of the written procedure, that the judgment is        Pleas in law and main arguments
not consistent with the relevant case-law and that the Court ,
of First Instance wrongly held that there was no need for it to       The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
hear evidence to establish the truth of certain of the                paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires Member
appellant's claims .                                                  States to adopt the measures necessary to transpose
                                                                      directives addressed to them into their domestic law before
He also maintains that the Court of First Instance wrongly            the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so . That period
held that it was justified in not examining certain witnesses         expired on 1 August 1992 without Portugal having adopted
whom the appellant wished to call but that it was justified,          the necessary provisions .
on behalf of the appointing authority, in examining former
complaints to the detriment of the appellant, whereas it              (') OJ No L 228 , 17 . 8 . 1991 , p . 67.
should have confined itself to establishing the facts of the
case and where responsibility for the present dispute lay.


title: Case C-527/03: Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
6.3.2004                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/7
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                State Forest Department of two-way radio equipment for
                                                                           communication with firefighting aircraft and for the acqui-
—      Declare that, by adopting Article 1, second subparagraph            sition and/or implementation, again on behalf of that Depart-
       and first, second and third subparagraphs of Article 2 of           ment, of air services for fighting forest fires, in the last case
       Order No 3231 of the President of the Council of                    providing, in terms similar to the provision in respect of the
       Ministers of 24 July 2002, which allow for private                  acquisition of firefighting aircraft, that the relevant contracts
       negotiations by way of derogation from the provisions of            may also be entered into in derogation from the legislation
       the Community directives on public supply and service               transposing the Community directives on public contracts
       contracts, and in particular, from the common rules on              and, in particular, Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/36/EEC.
       advertising and participation laid down by Titles III and
       IV of Directive 93/36/EEC (1) and III and V of Directive
       92/50/EEC (2), for the acquisition of aircraft to combat            The Commission further considers that, in those cases,
       forest fires and for the acquisition of firefighting services       recourse cannot be had to private negotiations and that, in any
       and which similarly allow for such negotiations for the             case, no evidence of the existence of the conditions required
       acquisition of technical and computer equipment and                 for recourse to such negotiations was provided by the Italian
       two-way radios, without any of the lawful conditions for            authorities. In particular, none of the conditions under
       derogation from those common rules being satisfied and,             Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 93/36/EEC and Article 11(2)
       in any event, without ensuring any form of direct                   and (3) of Directive 92/50/EEC is satisfied.
       advertising such as to permit a competitive comparison
       between potential tenderers, the Italian Republic has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/
       36/EEC of 18 June 1992 and Articles 43 and 49 of the                (1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1.
       EC Treaty;                                                          (2) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
—      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Contracts for the supply of aircraft fall within the scope of              Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission
Directive 93/36/EEC which governs the award procedure for                  of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
public supply contracts.                                                                                Netherlands
Pursuant to Article 6 of the directive, the contracting auth-                                        (Case C-527/03)
orities are to award supply contracts by the open or restricted
procedures. Recourse to the negotiated procedure is permitted
only in the cases expressly provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3                                        (2004/C 59/12)
of that article. Article 6(3) includes, amongst the cases in
which the negotiated procedure is permitted, that where,
for reasons of extreme urgency brought about by events
unforeseeable by the contracting authorities, and for which
those authorities are not responsible, the time limits laid down           An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
for the competitive procedures with prior publication cannot               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
be observed.                                                               15 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils,
                                                                           acting as Agents.
The Commission points out that, in the present case, none of
the conditions laid down by Article 6 of Directive 93/36/EEC
for derogation from the provisions of that directive appears to
apply and that, in particular, there do not appear to be reasons           The applicant claims that the Court should:
of urgency such as to permit the contracting authority to avail
itself of the derogation under Article 6(3)(d) of the directive.           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Directive 2000/59/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
The Commission further points out that the contested order                       of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception
lays down numerous other possibilities for resorting to private                  facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, or,
negotiations, namely for the acquisition of the material                         in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those
necessary to equip the Department of Civil Protection with                       measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
technical and computer systems, for the acquisition by the                       fulfil its obligations under that directive;
 ---pagebreak--- C 59/8                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.3.2004
2.    order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.               Action brought on 18 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-531/03)
The period for implementation of the Directive expired on
28 December 2002.                                                                                (2004/C 59/14)
(1) OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81.
                                                                           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 18 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of the
                                                                           Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties, and Florence Simonetti, a national civil servant on
Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           secondment to the Legal Service of the Commission, acting as
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                           Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                             Netherlands
                          (Case C-528/03)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2004/C 59/13)
                                                                           1.    Declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under Article 4, in conjunction
                                                                                with point 7(b) and (c) of Annex I and point 10(e) of
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                     Annex II, of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1)of 27 June
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
15 December 2003 by the Commission of the European                               and private projects on the environment, as amended by
Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils,                            Council Directive 97/11/EC (2) of 3 March 1997,
acting as Agents.
                                                                                —     in so far as that directive has, in particular, not yet
                                                                                been transposed for purposes of road construction
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                            projects in the federal Land of Rhineland-Palatinate
                                                                                and
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 2002/35/EC (1) of 25 April 2002                       —     in so far as it is possible for road construction
      concerning the setting up of a harmonised safety regime                          projects in the federal Land of North Rhine-
      for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over, or, in                      Westphalia to be granted development consent
      any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those                          without an environmental impact assessment being
      measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to                           carried out;
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                           2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
2.    order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.                     of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The period for implementation of the Directive expired on
1 January 2003.
                                                                           The period for transposition of Directive 97/11/EC amending
(1) OJ 2002 L 112, p. 21.
                                                                           Directive 85/337/EEC expired on 14 March 1999 without the
                                                                           federal Land of Rhineland-Palatinate having adopted the
                                                                           necessary measures to implement it, in particular in relation to
                                                                           road construction projects.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2000 in Joined Cases T-611/97 and T-619/97 to T-627/97: Transfluvia NV and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability — Single European Act — Customs agent — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
9.9.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 259/21
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                at Poperinge (Belgium), Noël Boone SPRL, established at
                                                                           Herseaux (Belgium), J. Grayet et G. Heidner SPRL, established
                           of 27 June 2000                                 at Welkenraedt (Belgium), Straps SA, established at Chaudfon-
                                                                           taine (Belgium), Ziegler SA, established in Brussels, Maison
                                                                           Parent SCRL, established at Hertain (Belgium), Magemon
in Case T-608/97: Onno Plug v Commission of the                            SA, established at Liège (Belgium), Garsou-Augenot SPRL,
                    European Communities (1)                               established at Verviers (Belgium), and Somimpex SPRL, estab-
                                                                           lished at Mouscron (Belgium), represented by P. Cavenaile and
(Officials — Act adversely affecting an official — Confirma-               K. Tanghe, of the Liège Bar, with an address for service in
                     tory act — Inadmissibility)                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt, 62 Avenue
                                                                           Guillaume, v Council of the European Union (Agents:
                                                                           M.C. Giorgi and G. Houttuin) and Commission of the Euro-
                           (2000/C 259/36)
                                                                           pean Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) — applications for
                                                                           compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appli-
                                                                           cants as a result of the establishment, with effect from
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           1 January 1993, of the internal market in accordance with the
                                                                           Single European Act, and of the consequent discontinuance of
In Case T-608/97: Onno Plug, a former member of the                        the activities which they had hitherto carried on as customs
temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-                 agents in the field of intra-Community trade — the Court of
ties, residing at Thônex (Switzerland), represented by G. Van-             First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,
dersanden and L. Lévi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion                 made an order on 16 June 2000, the operative part of which
Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, v Commission of the European                is as follows:
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
for annulment of the decision contained in the Commission’s                1.    Cases T-611/97 and T-619/97 to T-627/97 are joined for
letter of 14 January 1997 and, in so far may be necessary, of                    the purposes of the further steps to be taken in the proceedings.
the decision of 12 September 1997 rejecting the complaint of
16 April 1997 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),               2.    The actions are dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh
and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on               3.    The applicants are to bear her own costs and to pay the costs of
27 June 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                         the Council.
1.     The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                            4.    The Commission is to bear its own costs.
2.     The parties are to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998 and OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
(1) OJ C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                          of 15 June 2000
                           of 16 June 2000                                 in Case T-614/97: Aduanas Pujol Rubio SA and Others v
                                                                           Council of the European Union and Commission of the
in Joined Cases T-611/97 and T-619/97 to T-627/97:                                            European Communities (1)
Transfluvia NV and Others v Council of the European
 Union and Commission of the European Communities (1)                      (Non-contractual liability — Single European Act — Cus-
                                                                                toms agent — Action manifestly unfounded in law)
(Non-contractual liability — Single European Act — Cus-
      toms agent — Action manifestly unfounded in law)                                               (2000/C 259/38)
                           (2000/C 259/37)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
              (Languages of the case: French and Dutch)                    In Case T-614/97: Aduanas Pujol Rubio SA, established in
                                                                           Barcelona (Spain), and 115 others, represented by S. Muñoz
In Joined Cases T-611/97 and T-619/97 to T-627/97: Transflu-               Machado, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in
via NV, established at Menen (Belgium), Wybo NV, established               Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route d’Esch, v


title: Case T-438/17: Action brought on 17 July 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/34

         Action brought on 17 July 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)
   (Case T-438/17)
   (2017/C 309/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: The Scotch Whisky Association (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Rodríguez Domínguez and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Estévez, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘JOHN COR’ — European Union trade mark No 10 965 937

      Procedure before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2017 in Case R 1289/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Infringement of Article 51(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-70/06: Action brought on  28 February 2006  — Audi Aktiengesellschaft v OHIM

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/30

         Action brought on 28 February 2006 — Audi Aktiengesellschaft v OHIM
   (Case T-70/06)
   (2006/C 96/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Audi Aktiengesellschaft (Ingolstadt, Germany) (represented by O. Gillert, F. Schiwek, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 December 2005 (Case R 237/2005-2);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of this action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word Mark ‘Vorsprung durch Technik’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 45 — Application no. 3 016 292

      Decision of the Examiner: Partial rejection of the application
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial rejection of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of EC Regulation 40/94, as the mark applied for is sufficiently distinct and the contested decision does not contain any findings regarding the relevant public.


title: Judgment of the Court of 22 November 2001 in Case C-452/98: Nederlandse Antillen v Council of the European Union (Arrangements for association of overseas countries and territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
2.2.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 31/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
                      of 22 November 2001                                    2.    Orders Antillean Rice Mills NV to pay the costs.
                                                                             3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian
in Case C-451/98: Antillean Rice Mills NV v Council of                             Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Commission
                     the European Union (1)                                        of the European Communities to bear their own costs.
(Arrangements for association of overseas countries and
                                                                             (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas
countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regu-
lation (EC) No 304/97 — Action for annulment — Inadmis-
                              sibility)
                          (2002/C 31/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                of 22 November 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Case C-452/98: Nederlandse Antillen v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
In Case C-451/98: Antillean Rice Mills NV, established in                    (Arrangements for association of overseas countries and
Bonaire (Netherlands Antilles), (Avocats: W. Knibbeler and                   territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas
K.J. Defares), supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:               countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regu-
M.A. Fierstra) v Council of the European Union (Agents:                      lation (EC) No 1036/97 — Action for annulment —
R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Kingdom                                            Inadmissibility)
of Spain (Agent: L. Pérez de Ayala Becerril), French Republic
(Agent: by K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance), Italian
Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri), and                                                (2002/C 31/02)
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: T. van
Rijn) —application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC)                                      (Language of the case: Dutch)
No 304/97 of 17 February 1997 introducing safeguard
measures in respect of imports of rice originating in the
overseas countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 51, p. 1) — the                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann                                in the European Court Reports)
and F. Macken (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-
mann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, L. Sevón,
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,              In Case C-452/98: Nederlandse Antillen (Avocats: P.V.F. Bos
has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in which it:                       and M. Slotboom) v Council of the European Union (Agents:
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.2.2002
R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Kingdom              GmbH, 4. Haus der Technik DI A. Gobiet und DI F. Schweig-
of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta), Italian Republic (Agents:        hofer Ziviltechniker GmbH, 5. Hopferwieser, Dipl.-Ing. Walter,
U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri), and Commission of the                 6. GC General Contract DI Wolfgang Wisserodt Ingenieurge-
European Communities (Agents: P.J. Kuijper and T. van Rijn)              sellschaft m.b.H, a bidding consortium, against Autobahnen-
— application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC)                   und Schnellstraßen- Finanzierungs-AG (ASFINAG) on the
No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997 introducing safeguard measures                 following questions:
in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 151, p. 8) — the Court,             Question 1
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann and
F. Macken (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,             Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.P. Puissochet, L. Sevón,                ber 1989 (1) on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; P. Léger,              administrative provisions relating to the application of review
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the             procedures to the award of public supply and public works
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in                  contracts to be interpreted as meaning that the review
which it:                                                                procedure must be available to any undertaking which has
                                                                         submitted a bid, or applied to participate, in a public procure-
                                                                         ment procedure?
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
                                                                         In the event that the answer to Question 1 is no:
2.    Orders the Netherlands Antilles to pay the costs.
                                                                         Question 2
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic and the
                                                                         Is the abovementioned provision to be understood as meaning
      Commission of the European Communities to bear their own
                                                                         that an undertaking only has or had an interest in a particular
      costs.
                                                                         public contract if — in addition to its participating in the
                                                                         public procurement procedure — it takes or took all steps
                                                                         available to it under national law to prevent the contract from
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                being awarded to another bidder and so to secure the award
                                                                         of the contract to itself?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 395, p. 33.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
beamt Wien by order of 8 October 2001 in review
proceedings brought by 1. FRITSCH, CHIARI & PART-
NER, Ziviltechniker GmbH, 2. Büro Axis Ingenieurleis-
tungen, 3. Vasko & Partner Ingenieure, Ziviltechniker für                Action brought on 23 October 2001 by the Commission
Bauwesen GmbH, 4. Haus der Technik DI A. Gobiet und                      of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
DI F. Schweighofer Ziviltechniker GmbH, 5. Hopferwie-
ser, Dipl.-Ing. Walter, 6. GC General Contract DI Wolfgang                                        (Case C-420/01)
Wisserodt Ingenieurgesellschaft m.b.H, a bidding consor-
tium against Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen- Finan-
                   zierungs-AG (ASFINAG)                                                           (2002/C 31/04)
                         (Case C-410/01)
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                          (2002/C 31/03)                                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 October
                                                                         2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Hendrik Van Lier and Roberto Amorosi, acting
                                                                         as Agents.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 8 October 2001 by
the Bundesvergabeamt Wien (Austrian Federal Procurement                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Office, Vienna), which was received at the Court Registry on
16 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the review                  —     Declare that, by applying rules to drinks manufactured
proceedings brought by 1. FRITSCH, CHIARI & PARTNER,                           and marketed in other Member States prohibiting the
Ziviltechniker GmbH, 2. Büro Axis Ingenieurleistungen,                         marketing in Italy of energy drinks containing caffeine in
3. Vasko & Partner Ingenieure, Ziviltechniker für Bauwesen                     excess of a certain limit, without showing how such a


title: Case C-463/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 6 September 2011 — L v M

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 6 September 2011 — L v M
   (Case C-463/11)
   2011/C 355/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: L

      Defendant: M

      Question referred

   Does a Member State exceed the limits of its discretion under Article 3(4) and (5) of Directive 2001/42 (1) if, in respect of a municipality’s development plans which determine the use of small areas at local level and set the framework for future development consent of projects but do not fall within the scope of Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/42, it determines — having regard to the relevant criteria of Annex II to the directive — by specifying a particular type of development plan which is characterised by a threshold based on surface area and by a qualitative condition, that when drawing up such a development plan the procedural provisions on environmental assessment otherwise applicable to development plans are to be waived and also provides that an infringement of those procedural provisions which stems from the fact that the municipality has incorrectly assessed the qualitative condition is irrelevant for the legal validity of a development plan of that particular type?

      (1)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).