title: Case C-68/08: Action brought on 19 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/21

         Action brought on 19 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-68/08)
   (2008/C 92/40)
   Language of the case: Estonian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Randvere and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Estonia
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (1);

               —

               order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposing the directive into national law expired on 28 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81.


title: Case T-194/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Bristol Global v OHIM — Bridgestone (AEROSTONE)

text:
               19.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/33

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Bristol Global v OHIM — Bridgestone (AEROSTONE)
   (Case T-194/14)
   2014/C 151/42
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bristol Global Co. Ltd (Birmingham, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Bozhinova, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bridgestone Corp. (Tokyo, Japan)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 December 2013 given in Case R 916/2013-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark containing the verbal element ‘AEROSTONE’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark application No 10 066 736

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trademarks registrations of the word marks ‘STONE’ for goods in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 and ‘BRIDGESTONE’ for goods in Class 12; well-known trade mark and non-registered sign containing verbal element ‘BRIDGESTONE’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case C-347/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg), lodged on 20 July 2012 — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Ulrike Wiering, Markus Wiering

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Luxembourg), lodged on 20 July 2012 — Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Ulrike Wiering, Markus Wiering
   (Case C-347/12)
   2012/C 287/52
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Caisse nationale des prestations familiales

      Respondents: Ulrike Wiering, Markus Wiering

      Question referred

   For the calculation of any differential allowance that may be due, in accordance with Articles 1(u)(i), 4(1)(h) and 76 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, (1) as amended, and with Article 10[(1)](b)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, (2) by the competent institution of the State of the place of work, is it necessary to take into account, as family benefits of the same kind, all of the benefits received by the family of the migrant worker in the State of residence, in the present case the ‘Elterngeld’ and ‘Kindergeld’ provided for by German legislation?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.

      (2)  OJ, English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 160.


title: Case T-15/16: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Pandalis v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (Cystus) ((EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU word mark Cystus — Partial revocation — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No genuine use of the mark))

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Pandalis v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (Cystus)
   (Case T-15/16) (1)

   (((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Cystus - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No genuine use of the mark)))
   (2017/C 095/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Georgios Pandalis (Glandorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2015 (Case R 2839/2014-1), relating to revocation proceedings between LR Health & Beauty Systems and Mr Pandalis.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Georgios Pandalis to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case T-165/12: Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2013 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Provision of support services for the purpose of developing an information technology infrastructure and e-government services in Albania — Rejection of a tenderer’s bid — Transparency — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2013 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-165/12) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Provision of support services for the purpose of developing an information technology infrastructure and e-government services in Albania - Rejection of a tenderer’s bid - Transparency - Obligation to state reasons)
   2014/C 39/31
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. van Nuffel and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision CMS/cms D(2012)/00008 of 8 February 2012 rejecting the applicants’ tender in the closed tendering procedure EuropeAid/131431/C/SER/AL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision CMS/cms D(2012)/00008 of 8 February 2012 rejecting tender submitted by European Dynamics Luxembourg SA and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE in the closed tendering procedure EuropeAid/131431/C/SER/AL;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


title: Case C-548/07: Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/31

         Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-548/07) (1)

   (2009/C 69/61)

      Language of the case: Greek

   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case T-353/02: Action brought on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y Beltrán S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
C 44/30                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         22.2.2003
established in Uelzen, Germany, represented by D. Fouquet,                  Action brought on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y
Lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities                      Beltrán S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
(Agents: V. Kreuschitz and J.L. Buendia Sierra) — application                                   Internal Market (OHIM)
for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to
examine non-notified aid granted by the Federal Republic of
Germany to nuclear power station operators — the Court                                              (Case T-353/02)
of First Instance (First Chamber, Enlarged Composition),
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Azizi. R.M. Moura
Ramos, M. Jaeger and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 27 November 2002, in which it:                                                      (2003/C 44/60)
1.     Held that there was no need to give judgment in the action;
                                                                            (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with
                                                                            Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Application in Spanish)
2.     Ordered each party to bear its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                            Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y
                                                                            Beltrán S.A. of Santander (Spain), represented by Natalia Moya
                                                                            Fernández.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                              INSTANCE                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        of 6 December 2002                                  —     annul the decision of 6 August 2002 of the Second Board
                                                                                of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (OHIM) in Case R-407/2001 and the corrigendum
     in Case T-275/02 R: D v European Investment Bank                             of 16 September 2002 thereto;
(Procedure for interim relief — Extension of probationary                   —     reject Opposition B 35073 in its entirety;
period — Admissibility of the main action — Urgency —
                                 None)
                                                                            —     uphold the claims of the applicant and direct the relevant
                                                                                Opposition Division of OHIM to proceed to register the
                           (2003/C 44/59)                                         mark in question;
                    (Language of the case: French)                          —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-275/02 R: D, an agent of the European Investment
Bank, residing in Luxembourg, represented by J. Choucroun,                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
European Investment Bank (Agents: J.-P. Minnaert and P. Mou-
sel) — application for suspension of operation of the decisions
of the European Investment Bank first extending the applicant’s             Applicant for the Com-         Duarte y Beltrán S.A.
period of probation and second dismissing him — the                         munity trade mark:
President of the Court of First Instance has made an order on
6 December 2002, in which he:                                               Community trade mark           INTEA — application no 99 747
                                                                            applied for:                   for certain goods in classes 3, 16
                                                                                and 21
1.     Dismisses the application for interim measures;
2.     Orders that costs are reserved.                                      Proprietor of the trade        MIRATO S.p.A.
                                                                            mark or sign invoked in
                                                                            the opposition pro-
                                                                            cedure:
 ---pagebreak--- 22.2.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 44/31
Trade mark or        sign   Word marks INTESA (two Italian               The applicant claims that the Court should:
opposed:                    marks, one international mark
                            and a Greek, a Finnish, a Swedish,
                            a UK and an Irish mark), for goods           —     annul Commission Decision C(2002) 3370 dated 9 Sep-
                            in classes 9, 14, 18 and 21, in the                tember 2002;
                            case of one of the two Italian
                            marks, and class 3 in the case of            —     order that the Commission pays the applicant’s costs
                            the others. The opposition was
                            directed against the goods men-
                            tioned in the application as being
                            in classes 3 and 21.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Ruling of the Opposition    opposition partially upheld (risk
Division:                   of confusion in the case of goods
                            of class 3).                                 The contested decision requires the Member States to amend
                                                                         the national marketing authorisations as listed in annex I
Decision of the Board of    appeal dismissed.                            to the Decision. The amendments concern the marketing
Appeal:                                                                  authorisations for Capoten and associated names, to produce
                                                                         a harmonised summary of product characteristics.
Pleas in law:               —      relevance of the phonetic dif-
                                   ference between the conflict-
                                   ing marks                             The applicant represents the various subsidiary companies that
                                                                         are the marketing holders for Capoten throughout the EU.
                            —      conceptual           difference       Capoten, based on the active substance captopril, is a medicinal
                                   between the marks                     product commonly know as an ACE-inhibitor. The product
                                                                         was first authorised in the EU in 1980.
                            —      no risk of confusion between
                                   the conflicting marks.
                                                                         The authorisations for Capoten in the EU were obtained under
                                                                         national marketing authorisation procedures, pursuant to
                                                                         Directive 65/65/EEC ( 1). As a result, some differences existed
                                                                         between the authorisations in the EU Member States as regards
                                                                         the wording and extent of information given. According to the
                                                                         applicant, the therapeutic indications were similar in all
                                                                         Member States.
                                                                         Following patent expiry in the individual Member States,
Action brought on 25 November 2002 by Bristol-Myers
                                                                         generic captopril products have been authorised in those
Squibb International Corporation against the Commission
                                                                         states. The applicant believes that after an attempt to achieve
               of the European Communities
                                                                         mutual recognition in Italy of the authorisation by France of
                                                                         one of those generic products, Italy referred the matter to the
                                                                         Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. The rationale
                       (Case T-354/02)                                   of the referral was that the therapeutic indications in the
                                                                         summary of product characteristics were different and that a
                                                                         harmonisation was necessary for public health reasons. The
                        (2003/C 44/61)                                   contested decision was adopted following the referral.
                 (Language of the case: English)                         In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
                                                                         contested decision is invalid on the ground of lack of
                                                                         competence of the European Agency for the Evaluation of
                                                                         Medicinal Products, the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal
                                                                         Products and the Commission. According to the applicant, the
                                                                         referral to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                was not in accordance with Article 30 of Directive 2001/83/
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for
European Communities on 25 November 2002 by Bristol-                     human use ( 2). The existence of divergent national decisions
Myers Squibb International Corporation, Brussels, Belgium,               regarding the authorisation of a product is a necessary, but not
represented by David Anderson QC, Kelyn Bacon, Barrister                 a sufficient condition for such a referral. According to the
and Ian Dodds-Smith, Solicitor.                                          applicant, the referring body must additionally identify the


title: Case T-388/07: Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2010 — Comune di Napoli v Commission (ERDF — Reduction in assistance — Urban pilot project for the development of a telematic network for the city of Naples — Notion of ‘irregularity’ — Eligible expenses)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 6 May 2010 — Comune di Napoli v Commission
      (Case T-388/07) (1)

      (ERDF - Reduction in assistance - Urban pilot project for the development of a telematic network for the city of Naples - Notion of ‘irregularity’ - Eligible expenses)
      (2010/C 161/59)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Comune di Napoli (Italy) (represented by: F. Sciaudone, G. Tarallo, G. Pizza and R. Sciaudone, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, Agent, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

         Re:

      First, annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 3893 of 8 August 2007, concerning a reduction in the assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) under Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 4254/88, amended by Regulation (EEC) No 2083/93, to the city of Naples (Italy) by Commission Decision PH/1997/2761, approving the granting of ERDF assistance in the context of urban pilot project No 97.05.29.002 and, secondly, an application for damages seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested decision.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders the Comune di Napoli to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-613/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — European Commission v Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH, formerly Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — European Commission v Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH, formerly Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others
   (Case C-613/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 104/05)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and J. Norris-Usher, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Keramag Keramische Werke GmbH, formerly Keramag Keramische Werke AG, Koralle Sanitärprodukte GmbH, Koninklijke Sphinx BV, Allia SAS, Produits Céramiques de Touraine SA, Pozzi Ginori SpA, Sanitec Europe Oy (represented by: J. Killick, Barrister, P. Lindfelt, advokat, and K. Struckmann, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside points 1 and 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T-379/10 and T-381/10, EU:T:2013:457);

               2.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3.

               Dismisses the cross-appeal;

               4.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union as regards the part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013, Keramag Keramische Werke and Others v Commission (T-379/10 and T-381/10, EU:T:2013:457) set aside by the present judgment;

               5.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case C-37/12 P: Appeal brought on 26 January 2012 by Saupiquet against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/17

         Appeal brought on 26 January 2012 by Saupiquet against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission

   (Case C-37/12 P)
   2012/C 89/26
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Saupiquet SAS (represented by: R. Ledru, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 24 November 2011 in Case T-131/10 Saupiquet v Commission;

               —

               Grant in their entirety the forms of order sought in the present appeal and those sought at first instance by the undertaking Saupiquet;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant alleges, firstly, infringement by the General Court of the fundamental principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and, in consequence, of Articles 2 and 9 of the Treaty on European Union, Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
   Secondly, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, conferring power and, in particular, exclusive responsibility on the Union in respect of customs matters.
   Thirdly, the appellant alleges infringement of Articles 247 and 247a of the Community Customs Code. (1)

   Fourthly and lastly, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 7 of Council Regulation No 975/2003. (2)

   In fact, contrary to the findings of the General Court, it follows from the combined application of the texts referred to above that the Commission must be held liable for the negative consequences of the closure of customs offices on Sundays in certain Member States and must take the measures necessary to remedy those consequences.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 975/2003 of 5 June 2003 opening and providing for the administration of a tariff quota for imports of canned tuna covered by CN codes 1604 14 11, 1604 14 18 and 1604 20 70 (OJ 2003 L 141, p. 1).


title: Case T-507/12: Action brought on 20 November 2012 — Slovenia v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/19

         Action brought on 20 November 2012 — Slovenia v Commission
   (Case T-507/12)
   2013/C 32/30
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by V. Klemenc, State advocate, and A. Grum, assistant State advocate)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision of 19 October 2012 on the measures in favour of the undertaking ELAN d.o.o., SA.26379 (C-13/2010) (ex NN 17/2010), notified to Slovenia by the Commission by letter SG-Greffe(2012) D/14375 of 20 September 2012, in which it was decided, inter alia, in Article 2 that in 2008 Slovenia had unlawfully given effect to a measure of State aid in favour of Elan, in the form of recapitalisation of that body in the sum of EUR 10 million, contrary to Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, wherefore Slovenia is obliged to recover from the beneficiary the aid declared illegal, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: in the contested decision the Commission misapplied Articles 107(1) TFEU and 345 TFEU and infringed substantive procedural requirements, for it assessed the facts incorrectly and gave defective and/or incorrect reasons for the decision at issue concerning the question whether a recapitalisation measure in 2008 can be attributed to the Republic of Slovenia.
               It is the applicant’s opinion that the Commission, contrary to Articles 107(1) TFEU and 345 TFEU, concluded that the conduct of the members of Elan on the latter’s recapitalisation in 2008 could be attributed to the Republic of Slovenia. The Commission’s conclusion was based on the fact that the State, as owner, appoints the supervisory council; the Commission thereby discriminates, in the applicant’s view, against the twofold system of management of public undertakings.
               The reasoning for the decision is deficient – that is to say, it wants relevant, adequate grounds – and incorrect, in that the Commission argues that there exist strong indications of the State’s being closely involved in the decision-making process of a company with share capital (Kapitalska družba, ‘KAD’) and of a consultancy and management company (Družba za svetovanje in upravljanje, DSU), that is to say, its arguments rest on no more than unreliable evidence and hear-say evidence. The contested decision is quite unsupported by reasons in respect too of the other members of Elan, against whom the Commission intends to level only an allegation of ‘parallel conduct’. In the applicant’s opinion, the factors mentioned by the Commission in the contested decision in no way amount to evidence that would, in accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court, demonstrate the State authorities’ involvement in the adoption of the measure recapitalising Elan in 2008.

               2.

               Second plea in law: in the contested decision, the Commission misapplied Article 107(1) TFEU and infringed substantive procedural requirements, for it assessed the facts incorrectly and gave defective and/or incorrect reasons for the decision at issue with regard to the conclusion that the measure recapitalising Elan in 2008 had not been effected in accordance with the principle of the private investor operating in a market economy, thus affording Elan a selective advantage.
               The applicant claims in its action that the measure recapitalising Elan in 2008 was effected in accordance with the principle of the prudent private investor operating in a market economy, for the members, when deciding on the recapitalisation measure, relied on the appraisal of the undertaking in which proper consideration was given to the worsening of Elan’s operations in the greater part of the winter season of 2007/2008, and therefore during the first quarter of 2008 too. The worsening state of affairs in 2008 was not, however, so drastic as to affect the reliability of an assessment of the value of the undertaking. The members took their decision as long-term shareholders in an undertaking that had temporarily run into difficulties, but that was in the long term capable not merely of surviving, but also of returning to profitable operation. In its contested decision, the Commission did not satisfactorily explain why it took selective account of an estimate of the value of the undertaking, thus acting arbitrarily.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 23 November 1995 in Case C-10/95 P: Asociación Española de Empresas de la Carne v. Council of the European Union (Agriculture - Financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat - Action for annulment of a directive - Natural or legal persons - Acts concerning them directly and individually - Appeal clearly unfounded)

text:
No C 31 /8             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        3 . 2 . 96
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                    following two supplementary questions, received at the
                       ( Second Chamber)                               Court Registry on 9 November 1995 :
                    of 23 November 1995
in Case C-10/95 P: Asociación Española de Empresas de la               '2 . If the answer to Question 1 is that the supplier's taxable
        Carne v. Council of the European Union ( J )                          amount is the price determined by the supply
(Agriculture — Financing ofhealth inspections and controls                    agreement, then, on the proper construction of
offresh meat andpoultrymeat — Action for annulment ofa                        Article 2 (1 ), is the stated amount paid by the supplier
directive — Natural or legal persons — Acts concerning                        to the dealer consideration for which any supply of
them directly and individually — Appeal clearly                               goods or services is effectedf; and
                             unfounded)
                           ( 96/C 31 / 15 )
                                                                       3.     Ifthe answer to Question 2 is "yes then, on the proper
                                                                              construction of Article 17 (2) (a), are such goods or
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                                services supplied by the dealer to the supplier or to some
                                                                              other person ?'.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                      ( 1 ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 4 .
In Case C-10/95 P: Asociacion Espanola de Empresas de la
Carne ( Asocarne ), an association governed by Spanish law,
based in Madrid, represented by Paloma Llaneza Gonzalez
of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 1 1 rue
Goethe , appellant — appeal against the order of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities ( First
Chamber ) of 20 October 1994 in Case T-99/94 Asocarne v.
Council [ 1994] ECR 11-871 seeking to have that order set              Appeal brought on 17 November 1995 by Tierce Ladbroke
aside, the other party to the proceedings being the Council            SA against the judgment delivered on 18 September 1995 by
of the European Union ( Agents : Ramon Torrent and Ignacio             the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of
Dfez Parra ) — the Court ( Second Chamber ), composed of               First Instance of the European Communities in Case
G. Hirsch, President ( of the Chamber ), G. F. Mancini                 T-471/93 (^ between Tierce Ladbroke SA and the
( Rapporteur ) and F. A. Schockweiler, Judges; M. N.                   Commission of the European Communities, supported by
Fennelly, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar has made                                        the French Republic
an order on 23 November 1995 , in which it:                                                      ( Case C-353/95 P
                                                                                ( 96/C 31 / 17 )
1 . dismisses the appeal;
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 September
2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.                             1995 by the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                       Case T-471 /93 between Tierce Ladbroke SA and the
(') OJ No C 54, 4 . 3 . 1995 .                                         Commission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                       the French Republic, was brought before the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities on 17 November
                                                                        1995 by Tierce Ladbroke SA, represented by Jeremy Lever,
                                                                       QC, and Christopher Vajda , Barristers of the Bar of England
                                                                       and Wales, and Stephen Kon, Solicitor, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Winandy & Err,
                                                                       60, avenue Gaston Diderich .
                            Information
                             96/C 31 / 1 6
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        1 . allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Court
Reference for a preliminary ruling in Case C-40/95 (') was                    of First Instance in Case T-471 /93 ;
made by the VAT and Duties Tribunal , London, by decision
of that court of 1 February 1995 , in the case of Conoco Ltd
against Commissioners of Customs and Excise . By direction             2.     annul    the   contested      Decision  contained   in    the
of 1 November 1995 , the said court has referred the                          Commission's letter of 18 January 1993 , and


title: Case C-486/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 4 November 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Piotr Kossowski

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 4 November 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Piotr Kossowski
      (Case C-486/14)
      (2015/C 016/28)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Hamburg (Hanseatic Higher Regional Court, Hamburg)

         Parties to the main proceedings

      Piotr Kossowski

         Other party: Generalstaatsanwaltschaft (Principal Public Prosecutor’s Office), Hamburg

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Do the reservations entered at the time of ratification by the contracting parties to the Schengen Convention (1) pursuant to Article 55(1)(a) thereof — specifically, the reservation entered by the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to (a) when depositing its instrument of ratification, that it is not bound by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention, ‘if the crime in respect of which the foreign judgment has been made was committed wholly or partly on its sovereign territory’ — continue in force following the integration of the Schengen acquis into the legal framework of the European Union by the Schengen Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam dated 2 October 1997, as preserved by the Schengen Protocol to the Treaty of Lisbon; are these exceptions proportionate limitations on Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, within the meaning of Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2)?

                  2.

                  If these questions are answered in the negative:
                  Are the prohibitions on double punishment and double prosecution laid down by Article 54 of the Schengen Convention and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to be interpreted as prohibiting prosecution of an accused person in one Member State — in the present case, the Federal Republic of Germany — where his prosecution in another Member State — in the present case, the Republic of Poland — by the Public Prosecutor has been discontinued, without any obligations imposed by way of penalty having been performed and without any detailed investigations, for factual reasons in the absence of adequate grounds for suspecting the accused of the crime, and can be re-opened only if significant circumstances previously unknown come to light, where such new circumstances have not in fact emerged?

         (1)  The Schengen acquis — Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19).

         (2)  Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, p. 391).


title: Case C-464/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Hasselt — Belgium) — Maria Geurts, Dennis Vogten v Administratie van de BTW, registratie en domeinen, Belgische Staat (Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — National tax legislation — Inheritance tax — Family company — Exemption — Conditions — Employment of a certain number of workers in a region of a Member State)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Hasselt — Belgium) — Maria Geurts, Dennis Vogten v Administratie van de BTW, registratie en domeinen, Belgische Staat
   (Case C-464/05) (1)

   (Articles 43 EC and 56 EC - National tax legislation - Inheritance tax - Family company - Exemption - Conditions - Employment of a certain number of workers in a region of a Member State)
   (2007/C 315/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Hasselt
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Maria Geurts, Dennis Vogten

      Defendant: Administratie van de BTW, registratie en domeinen, Belgische Staat
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Burgerlijke Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Hasselt — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC and 56 EC — Inheritance arising in a region of a Member State involving shares in a family company in another Member State and claims against that company — Provision for exemption from inheritance tax if that company has employed at least five full-time workers in that region during the three years prior to the death of the deceased — Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC and 56 EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   In the absence of valid justification, Article 43 EC precludes inheritance tax legislation of a Member State which excludes from the exemption from that tax available for family undertakings those undertakings which employ in the three years preceding the date of death of the deceased at least five workers in another Member State, whereas it grants such an exemption where the workers are employed in a region of the first Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case T-536/13: Order of the General Court of 17 April 2015 — Microsoft v OHIM — Softkinetic Software (KINECT)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/42

         Order of the General Court of 17 April 2015 — Microsoft v OHIM — Softkinetic Software (KINECT)
   (Case T-536/13) (1)

   (2015/C 205/56)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.


title: Case T-241/14 P: Appeal brought on 22 April 2014 by Jean-Pierre Bodson and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2014 in Case F-83/12, Bodson and Others v EIB

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/18

         Appeal brought on 22 April 2014 by Jean-Pierre Bodson and Others against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2014 in Case F-83/12, Bodson and Others v EIB
   (Case T-241/14 P)
   2014/C 223/23
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); Dalila Bundy (Cosnes-et-Romain, France); Didier Dulieu (Roussy-le-Village, France); Marie-Christel Heger (Nospelt, Luxembourg); Evangelos Kourgias (Senningerberg, Luxembourg); Manuel Sutil (Luxembourg); Patrick Vanhoudt (Gonderange, Luxembourg); and Henry von Blumenthal (Bergem, Luxembourg) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

      Form of order sought by the appellants

   The appellants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 12 February 2014 in Case F-83/12;

               —

               consequently, uphold the forms of order sought by the appellants at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul the decisions to distribute awards to the appellants pursuant to the new performance system resulting from the decision of 14 December 2010 of the Board of Directors and the decisions of 9 November 2010 and 16 November 2011 of the Management Committee, the individual award decision being contained in the April 2012 notice, brought to the attention of the persons concerned on 22 April 2012 at the earliest;

                           —

                           accordingly,

                                       —

                                       order the defendant to pay the difference in remuneration resulting from the decision of the Board of Directors of 14 December 2010 and the decisions of 9 November 2010 and 16 November 2011 and that paid in application of the preceding bonus system, with interest on arrears to be added to that difference in remuneration with effect from 22 April 2012 until full payment, the rate of interest being the ECB rate, increased by three percentage points;

                                       —

                                       order the defendant to pay damages for the loss suffered by reason of the loss of purchasing power, such loss being assessed equitably, and on a provisional basis, at 1,5 % of the monthly remuneration of each applicant;

                           —

                           if necessary, if the defendant does not produce them of its own accord, request the defendant to produce the following documents by way of measures of organisation of procedure:

                                       —

                                       the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of the EIB of 13 December 2011;

                                       —

                                       the drafts drawn up by the Department of Human Resources dated 22 June 2011 (RH/P&O/2011-119), 20 October 2011 (RH/P&O/2011-74) and 25 January 2012;

                           —

                           order the defendant to pay all the costs;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellants rely on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a procedural irregularity in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal refused to take the measures of organisation requested by the appellants.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the difference in character between a contractual employment relationship and an employment relationship governed by the Staff Regulations was not observed, an infringement of the fundamental conditions of the employment relationship, that the Memorandum of Understanding was not accorded the correct treatment in law, distortion of information in the file and infringement by the Tribunal of its obligation to state reasons.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of acquired rights and of legitimate expectations, and an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty, of non-retroactivity and of foreseeability, and an infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and of the obligation to state reasons.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Tribunal failed to correctly exercise its power of review as regards the manifest error of assessment and a distortion of information in the file.


title: Case C-503/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 4 December 2009 — Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 4 December 2009 — Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
   (Case C-503/09)
   2010/C 37/28
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lucy Stewart

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a benefit with the characteristics of short-term incapacity benefit in youth a sickness benefit or an invalidity benefit for the purposes of Regulation 1408/71 (1)?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is that such a benefit is to be treated as a sickness benefit:

                           (a)

                           Is a person, such as the claimant's mother, who has definitively ceased all employed or self-employed activity by virtue of retirement nevertheless an ‘employed person’ for the purposes of Article 19 by reason of their former employed or self-employed activity, or do Articles 27 to 34 (pensioners) contain the applicable rules?

                           (b)

                           Is a person, such as the claimant's father, who has not undertaken an employed or selfemployed activity since 2001, nevertheless an ‘employed person’ for the purposes of Article 19 by reason of their former employed or self-employed activity?

                           (c)

                           Is a claimant to be treated as a ‘pensioner’ for the purposes of Article 28 by virtue of the award of a benefit acquired pursuant to Article 95b of Regulation 1408/71, notwithstanding the facts that: (i) the claimant in question has never been an employed person under Article l (a) of Regulation 1408/71; (ii) the claimant has not reached state retirement age; and (iii) the claimant only comes within the personal scope of Regulation 1408/71 as a family member?

                           (d)

                           Where a pensioner falls within Article 28 of Regulation 1408/71, can a family member of that pensioner who has at all times resided with and in the same State as the pensioner claim, pursuant to Article 28.1, as read with Article 29, a cash sickness benefit from the competent institution determined by Article 28.2 where such benefit is (if due) payable to the family member (and not payable to the pensioner)?

                           (e)

                           If applicable (by reason of the answers to (a) to (d) above), is the application of a condition of national social security law limiting the initial acquisition of entitlement to a sickness benefit to those having completed a requisite period of past presence within the competent Member State within a defined prior period compatible with the provisions of Articles 19 and/or 28 of Regulation 1408/71?

               3.

               If the answer to question 1 is that such a benefit is to be treated as an invalidity benefit, does the wording in Article 10 of Regulation 1408/71 referring to benefits ‘acquired under the legislation of one or more Member States’ mean that Member States remain entitled under Regulation l408/71 to set conditions of initial acquisition to such invalidity benefits that are based upon residence in the Member State or upon demonstration of requisite periods of past presence in the Member State, such that a claimant cannot first claim entitlement to such benefit from another Member State?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community
   OJ L 149, p. 2


title: Case T-241/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of  17 May 2006  — Marcuccio v Commission (Officials — Reassignment — Accommodation provided by employer — Decision to remove the applicant's personal effects — Action for annulment — Action for damages — Act adversely affecting an official — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/32

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 May 2006 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-241/03) (1)

   (Officials - Reassignment - Accommodation provided by employer - Decision to remove the applicant's personal effects - Action for annulment - Action for damages - Act adversely affecting an official - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 178/59)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: L. Garofalo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. de March and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, an application for annulment of the note of 15 October 2002 concerning the removal of the applicant's personal effects from his former accommodation provided by his employer in Angola and, second, an application for damages for the harm allegedly caused the applicant by the contents of that note
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicant is to bear his own costs and pay those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 23.8.2003.


title: Case C-265/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Federutility, Assogas, Libarna Gas SpA, Collino Commercio SpA, Sadori Gas SpA, Egea Commerciale, E.On Vendita Srl, Sorgenia SpA v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas (Directive 2003/55/EC — Internal market in natural gas — State intervention on the price for the supply of natural gas after 1 July 2007 — Public service obligations of undertakings operating in the gas sector)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/6

      Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia — Italy) — Federutility, Assogas, Libarna Gas SpA, Collino Commercio SpA, Sadori Gas SpA, Egea Commerciale, E.On Vendita Srl, Sorgenia SpA v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas
      (Case C-265/08) (1)

      (Directive 2003/55/EC - Internal market in natural gas - State intervention on the price for the supply of natural gas after 1 July 2007 - Public service obligations of undertakings operating in the gas sector)
      (2010/C 161/07)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicants: Federutility, Assogas, Libarna Gas SpA, Collino Commercio SpA, Sadori Gas SpA, Egea Commerciale, E.On Vendita Srl, Sorgenia SpA

         Defendant: Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia — Interpretation of Articles 3(2) and 23 of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 57) — National legislation providing for the fixing of prices for the supply of natural gas to domestic customers

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 3(2) and 23(1) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC do not preclude national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits determination of the price level for the supply of natural gas by the definition of ‘reference prices’, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, after 1 July 2007, provided that such intervention:

                  —

                  pursues a general economic interest consisting in maintaining the price of the supply of natural gas to final consumers at a reasonable level having regard to the reconciliation which Member States must make, taking account of the situation in the natural gas sector, between the objective of liberalisation and that of the necessary protection of final consumers pursued by Directive 2003/55;

                  —

                  compromises the free determination of prices for the supply of natural gas after 1 July 2007 only in so far as is necessary to achieve such an objective in the general economic interest and, consequently, for a period that is necessarily limited in time;

                  —

                  is clearly defined, transparent, non discriminatory and verifiable, and guarantees equal access for EU gas companies to consumers.

         (1)  OJ C 236, 13.09.2008.


title: Case C-342/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on 18 July 2012 — Worten — Equipamentos para o Lar, S.A. v ACT — Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Viseu (Portugal) lodged on 18 July 2012 — Worten — Equipamentos para o Lar, S.A. v ACT — Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho
   (Case C-342/12)
   2012/C 295/37
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal do Trabalho de Viseu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Worten — Equipamentos para o Lar, S.A.

      Defendant: ACT — Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 2 of Directive 95/46/EC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the record of working time, that is, the indication, in relation to each worker, of the times when working hours begin and end, as well as breaks and intervals not included in that period, is included within the concept of personal data?

               2.

               If so, is the Portuguese State obliged, under Article 17(1) of Directive 95/46/EC, to provide for appropriate technical and organisational measures to protect personal data against accidental or unlawful destruction or accidental loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure or access, in particular where the processing involves the transmission of data over a network?

               3.

               Likewise, if Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, when the Member State does not adopt any measure pursuant to Article 17(1) of Directive 95/46/EC and when the employer, responsible for processing that data, adopts a system of restricted access to that data which does not allow automatic access by the national authority responsible for inspecting working conditions, is the principle of the primacy of European law to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State cannot penalise that employer for such behaviour?

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31).


title: Case C-239/01: Action brought on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
1.9.2001               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 245/5
(3) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council             Action brought on 19 June 2001 by the Commission of
      Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of                   the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing                                     (Case C-235/01)
      inflation, also requires insurance undertakings, if the
      client so requests, to draw up policies the terms of which
      incorporate a bonus-malus arrangement (positive or                                          (2001/C 245/10)
      negative adjustment of the premium on the basis of the
      claims record) subject to an excess in an amount set
                                                                       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      between the minimum and the maximum level permitted
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 June
      by law?
                                                                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(4) Must the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Council             represented by Bernard Mongin and Roberto Amorosi, acting
                                                                       as Agents.
      Directive 73/239/EEC, as amended by Article 6 of
      Council Directive 92/49/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
      national legislation which, for the purposes of curbing          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      inflation, provides that, on expiry of the period during
      which premium rates were frozen, the insured person              —     Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulation and
      may withdraw from the contract if, on the date for annual              administrative provisions necessary for compliance with
      renewal of the policy, an increase is applied to the                   Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998 amending
      premium (not provided for under a customised arrange-                  Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of training of
      ment) higher than the scheduled rate of inflation decided              seafarers (1), or in any event by not forwarding those
      by the Government?                                                     provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
                                                                             failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
(1) OJ L 228 of 16.8.1973, p. 3.
(2) OJ L 228 of 11.8.1992, p. 1.                                       —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                             proceedings.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty), which
Berlin by order of that court of 28 May 2001 in the case               provides that a directive is binding on each Member State to
   of Arnoud Gerritse against Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord                  which it is addressed as to the result to be achieved, involves
                                                                       an obligation on Member States to respect the periods for
                        (Case C-234/O1)                                transposition laid down in directives. That period expired on
                                                                       1 July 1999 without the Italian Republic having issued the
                        (2001/C 245/09)                                provisions necessary for compliance with the directive cited in
                                                                       the forms of order sought by the Commission.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht (Finance            (1) OJ L 172 of 17.06.1998, p. 1.
Court), Berlin, of 28 May 2001, which was received at the
Court Registry on 19 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Arnoud Gerritse against Finanzamt (District Tax
Office) Neukölln-Nord on the following question:
Is there an infringement of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                       Action brought on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Republic
Article 43 EC) where, under Paragraph 50a(4), first sentence,
                                                                       of Germany against the Commission of the European
point (1) and second sentence, of the Einkommensteuergesetz
                                                                                Communities
(Law on Income Tax) as in force in 1996 (’EStG 1996’), a
Netherlands national who earns in the Federal Republic of
Germany taxable net income of approximately                                                       (Case C-239/01)
DEM 5 000 from self-employed activity in the calendar year is
subject to deduction of tax at source by the person liable to                                     (2001/C 245/11)
pay his fees at the rate of 25 % his (gross) revenue of
approximately DEM 6 000 plus solidarity surcharge, where it
is not possible, by means of an application for a refund or an         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
application for a tax assessment, for him to recover, in whole         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
or in part, the taxes paid?                                            Communities on 21 June 2001 by the Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by W.-D. Plessing and J. Sedemund,
                                                                       acting as Agents.
 ---pagebreak--- C 245/6                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1.9.2001
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   budgetary plan. For the same reason, the co-financing
                                                                              regulation in dispute amounts to a circumvention of the
                                                                              budgetary provision in the first paragraph of
1.    annul Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EC)                        Article 269 EC. Moreover, the capping of own resources
      No 690/2001 of 3 April 2001 on special market support                   in accordance with Articles 269 and 270 EC would not
      measures in the beef sector (1), in so far as that provision            constitute an effective limit on Community expenditure
      requires the Member State concerned to finance 30 % of                  if the Commission had the power to order Community
      the cost of the meat purchase referred to in that                       expenditure without it being totally financed by the
      regulation;                                                             Community budget. By acting in that way, the procedure
                                                                              laid down in the second paragraph of Article 269 EC,
                                                                              requiring not only a unanimous decision of the Council
2.    order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  (after consultation with the Parliament) but also a ratifi-
                                                                              cation of that decision by the Parliaments of the Member
                                                                              States, could easily be circumvented.
                                                                        —     Infringement of Article 253 EC. Reference to the limited
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               nature of budgetary resources does not explain either
                                                                              with what justification the Commission purports to
                                                                              modify the principle of total financing of support
                                                                              measures in the beef sector by the Community budget by
                                                                              establishing compulsory co-financing, or why basis for
                                                                              allocation of 70 % — 30 % was necessary.
—     The Commission had no power to order a compulsory co-
      financing in the context of an implementing regulation.
      Article 5(5) of the contested regulation does not serve to
      ‘implement’ a corresponding general provision of the
      basic regulation, allowing co-financing in principle.             The applicant suggests that, in so far as it allows the action,
      Rather, it represents a clear departure from the provisions       the Court should maintain the effects of the regulation in order
      of Council Regulations Nos 1254/1999 and 1258/1999,               to protect the position of the operators concerned.
      which assume 100 % financing from the Community
      budget. The question of the financing of a specific support
      measure in the agricultural sector necessarily forms part
      of the essential features of the subject-matter of the            (1) OJ L 95, 5.4.2001, p. 8.
      legislation, which must be governed in the basic Council
      regulation. That is especially so since all the decisive
      questions on the financing of the common agricultural
      policy — including the Community beef market — are
      dealt with by Council Regulation No 1258/1999 (or
      Council Regulation No 1883/78, as the case may be).
—     Infringement of the financial provisions of the Treaty. By
      virtue of the system of the common organisation of the
      market in beef and the prohibition of State aid laid down
      by Article 87(1) EC, expressly confirmed in the thirty-
                                                                        Action brought on 21 June 2001 by the Commission of
      third recital in the preamble to Regulation
                                                                        the European Communities against the Federal Republic
      No 1254/1999, the support measures provided for by
                                                                                of Germany
      the contested regulation constitute, despite the partial
      financing by national budgetary resources, Community
      aid and therefore ‘expenditure of the Community’ within
      the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 268 EC. In                                   (Case C-240/01)
      accordance with that latter provision, ‘all items of revenue
      and expenditure of the Community [...] shall be included
      in estimates to be drawn up for each financial year and
      shall be shown in the budget’. The use of the adjective ‘all’                              (2001/C 245/12)
      (revenue and expenditure) in the first paragraph of
      Article 268 EC establishes the principle of the complete-
      ness/unity of the budget, which is a basic condition for a
      political weighting of revenue and expenditure in the             An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
      budget procedure and democratic control of the                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
      execution of the budget. That basic principle is not              ties on 21 June 2001 by the Commission of the European
      complied with where Community expenditure is (par-                Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser,
      tially) financed on the basis of an imperative regulation         and Kilian Gross, a member of the Legal Service, with an
      of secondary law from sources that are not part of the            address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case F-82/14: Action brought on 15 August 2014  — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/32

         Action brought on 15 August 2014 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-82/14)
   2014/C 388/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Cornacchia, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to exclude the applicant from Competition EPSO/AST/126/2012 because he did not inform the Selection Committee of his relationship to one of the members of the Jury.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 15 May 2014 whereby the Jury for Open Competition EPSO/AST/126/2012 confirmed, through a letter from EPSO responding to the request for review submitted by the applicant on 31 January 2014, that the applicant was excluded from that competition;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the decision referred to above, valued ex aequo et bono at EUR 3  000;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-14/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 January 2013 — Gena Ivanova Cholakova v Osmo rayonno upravlenie pri Stolichna direktsiya na vatreshnite raboti

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 10 January 2013 — Gena Ivanova Cholakova v Osmo rayonno upravlenie pri Stolichna direktsiya na vatreshnite raboti
   (Case C-14/13)
   2013/C 79/16
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gena Ivanova Cholakova

      Defendant: Osmo rayonno upravlenie pri Stolichna direktsiya na vatreshnite raboti

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 21(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in conjunction with Articles 67 and 72 of that Treaty and in the light of the limitations permitted under European Union law on the freedom of European Union citizens to move freely within the territory of the Member States, be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national law of a Member State, such as the one at issue in the case in the main proceedings, namely point 5 of Article 63(1) of the Zakon za ministerstvoto na vatreshnite raboti (Law on the Ministry for Home Affairs), pursuant to which the police authorities are authorised to order the detention, for a maximum of 24 hours, of a citizen of a Member State in order to establish his identity following a check which does not fall within one the cases laid down in the law of that Member State in which such checks are permitted to enable the police authorities to identify an individual, and which is not expressly linked to the finding or prevention of a criminal act or an administrative infringement, or the protection of public order or domestic security?

               2.

               Does it result from Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, interpreted in conjunction with the limitation on the rights laid down in Articles 6 and 45(1) of that Charter and in accordance with the European Union law principle of protection from arbitrary or disproportionate interference with the freedom of action of natural persons, that a provision of national law such as the one at issue in the case in the main proceedings, namely point 5 of Article 63(1) of the Zakon za ministerstvoto na vatreshnite raboti in relation to police detention for a maximum of 24 hours, may be applied — provided that a national of a Member State cannot be identified in accordance with the procedures laid down by law — pursuant to which such detention is permissible under the following conditions:

                           A.

                           the police authorities have discretion to order such a measure where it is impossible to identify the individual on the basis of an identification document, through another person whose identify is already known or by any other permissible means;

                           B.

                           the provision neither governs how to assess whether it is necessary to identify the individual, nor provides for an assessment of the individual’s conduct or whether, in the circumstances of the case, it has become necessary for the police authorities to make use of the authority made available to them under law;

                           C.

                           the identification of the individual is not based expressly on the cases in which the law authorises measures to be adopted to identify an individual; identification is also possible by merely consulting an information system or by another reliable means other than identification mesaures;

                           D.

                           the application of the provision is subject to review by the courts only in the circumstances set out therein, since the exercise of that authority is wholly discretionary?


title: Case T-142/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v OHIM — Fasel (CULTRA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative trade mark CULTRA — Earlier national word marks SCULPTRA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 July 2013 — Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v OHIM — Fasel (CULTRA)
   (Case T-142/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative trade mark CULTRA - Earlier national word marks SCULPTRA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 252/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Bridgewater, United States) (represented by: R. Gilbey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fasel Srl (Bologna, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 January 2012 (Case R 2478/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Fasel Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 January 2012 (Case R 2478/2010-1).

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3.

               Orders OHIM to pay its own costs and those of Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for the purposes of the proceedings before the General Court and of those before the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-337/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Public supply contracts — Directives 77/62/EEC and 93/36/EEC — Award of public contracts without prior publication of a notice — Absence of competitive tendering — Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-337/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Public supply contracts - Directives 77/62/EEC and 93/36/EEC - Award of public contracts without prior publication of a notice - Absence of competitive tendering - Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters)
   (2008/C 128/03)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and X. Lewis, avocat)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, assisted by G. Fiengo, lawyer)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Council Directives 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) and 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts — Failure to show existence of grounds which may justify recourse by the contracting authority to the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice — Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters purchased for the requirements of the State Forestry Corps, the Coastguard, the Carabinieri, etc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting a procedure, which has been in existence for a long time and is still followed, of directly awarding to Agusta SpA contracts for the purchase of Agusta and Agusta Bell helicopters to meet the requirements of several military and civilian corps, without any competitive tendering procedure, and, in particular, without complying with the procedures provided for by Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997, and previously, by Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended and supplemented by Council Directives 80/767/EEC of 22 July 1980 and 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case C-238/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 22 May 2015 — Maria do Céu Brangança Linares Verruga, Jacinto Manuel Sousa Verruga, André Angelo Linares Verruga v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif (Luxembourg) lodged on 22 May 2015 — Maria do Céu Brangança Linares Verruga, Jacinto Manuel Sousa Verruga, André Angelo Linares Verruga v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche
   (Case C-238/15)
   (2015/C 254/12)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Maria do Céu Brangança Linares Verruga, Jacinto Manuel Sousa Verruga, André Angelo Linares Verruga

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

      Question referred

   Is the condition imposed on students not residing in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by Article 2 bis of the Law of 22 June 2000 on State financial aid for higher education — which was added by the Law of 19 July 2013 and which does not take into account any other connecting factor —, namely that they must be the children of workers who have been employed or have carried out their activity in Luxembourg for a continuous period of at least five years at the time the application for financial aid is made, justified by the considerations relating to education policy and budgetary policy put forward by the Luxembourg State, and appropriate and proportionate in each case in relation to the objective pursued, namely of bringing about an increase in the proportion of persons with a higher education degree while seeking to ensure that those persons, having benefited from the possibility offered by the system of aid concerned in order to finance their studies — undertaken as the case may be abroad — will return to Luxembourg in order to apply their knowledge for the benefit of the economic development of that Member State?


title: Case C-78/09 P: Order of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs), Jean-Noël Castanet (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES — Refusal of registration — Absence of any distinctive character)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/18

         Order of the Court (Eight Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA v Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs), Jean-Noël Castanet
   (Case C-78/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark BATEAUX MOUCHES - Refusal of registration - Absence of any distinctive character)
   2010/C 24/29
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (represented by: G. Barbaut, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs), (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Jean-Noël Castanet (represented by: J.-P. Sulzer, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2008 in Case T-365/06 Bateaux mouches v OHMI by which the Court dismissed the action brought by the applicant against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2006, concerning proceedings for invalidity of the Community word mark ‘BATEAUX MOUCHES’ — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) — Misinterpretation of the criteria laid down by the case-law of the Court of Justice — Absence of any distinctive character

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders the Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102 of 01.05.2009


title: Case T-93/04: Actionbrought on 4 March 2004 by Theodoros Kallianosagainst Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/80

         Action brought on 4 March 2004 by Theodoros Kallianos against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-93/04)
   (2004/C 106/157)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 March 2004 by Theodoros Kallianos, residing in Kraainem (Brussels), represented by Guy Archambeau, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 2 December 2003 replying to the complaint brought by Mr Kallianos under No R/335/03 of 2 July 2003;

               —

               call on the Commission to repay to Mr Kallianos the whole of the pay and amounts withheld which it applied without being entitled to do so in respect of the remuneration payable to Mr Kallianos from the date on which he was granted a divorce by judgment No 2179/1999 of the Court of First Instance, Athens, of 8 March 1999, including indexation of the amount overpaid in aliment on the unilateral decision of 18 September 2002 adopted by the Commission (PMO –department concerned with salaries) or at the very least from judgment No 203/2003 delivered by the Court of Cassation of Greece on 7 February 2003 and of which it was aware;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant 20 % of the abovementioned amount by way of damages for the material and non-material damage suffered, including the legal costs incurred;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of effecting service including the costs of translation of the Greek judgments into French, documents which were in any event made available to the Commission in good time, amounting to EUR 1 500;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings and for the expenditure incurred.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is an official working at the Commission. Following an order of the Court of First Instance, Brussels, fixing maintenance payments payable to the applicant's spouse, the Commission began to withhold part of the applicant's salary. By his application, the applicant is challenging the amount withheld alleging error of law and of fact, absence of an enforcement order justifying the withholding of those amounts and infringement of Regulation No 1347/2000 (1).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses Official Journal L 160, 30/06/2000 p. 19.


title: Case T-440/14: Order of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/60

         Order of the General Court of 14 January 2016 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)
   (Case T-440/14) (1)

   (2016/C 098/77)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.


title: Case C-641/11: Action brought on 14 December 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/5

         Action brought on 14 December 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-641/11)
   2012/C 58/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Rozet and L. Pignataro)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by retaining as a condition for priority in the selection of candidates at least two years residence in the province of Bolzano, as provided for in Article 12 of DPR 752/1976, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union; (1)

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its action, the Commission complains about the inclusion of a provision affording priority in the selection of candidates on the basis of at least two years residence in the province of Bolzano (Trentino Alto Adige), a provision which is contrary to the obligations imposed by Article 45 TFEU and also by Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 492/2011. The Commission recalls that, according to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the equal treatment rule laid down in Article 45 TFEU prohibits not only overt discrimination by reason of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result (see, in particular, Case C-237/94 O’Flynn (1996) ECR I-2617, paragraph 17). That concerns, inter alia, a measure which draws a distinction on the basis of residence.
   In their reply to the reasoned opinion of 6 August 2010, the Italian authorities admitted that ‘(t)he residence clause contained in Article 12 of DPR 752/1976 could contain elements of indirect discrimination and therefore be contrary to Article 45 TFEU’ and that ‘(i)n order to resolve this problem, the text of the article will be amended without further ado’. The Commission has not hitherto received any information concerning the amendment in question and therefore concludes that the residence condition provided for in Article 12 of DPR 752/1976 is still in force.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court of 24 September 2014 in Case E-5/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives)

text:
               23.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/8

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 24 September 2014
   in Case E-5/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives)
   (2015/C 131/08)
   In Case E-5/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 32ff of Chapter V of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (‘EEA Agreement’), namely Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 24 September 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 32ff of Chapter V of Annex XX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of that Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.