title: Case C-430/02: Action brought on 28 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
25.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 19/21
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour de                               (a)   refrain from broadcasting television programmes,
cassation (France), chambre commerciale, financière et                                such as in particular retransmissions of sporting
économique, by judgment of that Court of 19 November                                  events, whether taking place in France or in other
2002 in the case of Bacardi-Martini SAS against Télévision                            countries of the Union, where they show prohibited
France TF1 S.A., Groupe Jean-Claude Darmon S.A. and                                   advertisements within the meaning of the French
                           Girosport Sàrl                                             Code des débits de boissons, or
                                                                                (b) broadcast them on condition that prohibited adver-
                                                                                tisements within the meaning of the French Code
                          (Case C-429/02)                                             des débits de boissons do not appear, thereby
                                                                                preventing the conclusion of advertising contracts
                                                                                concerning alcoholic drinks whether of national
                                                                                origin or from other Member States of the Union.
                           (2003/C 19/36)
                                                                         (1 ) Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordi-
                                                                              nation of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or
                                                                              Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit
                                                                              of television broadcasting activities (OJ L 298 of 17.10.1989,
                                                                              p. 23).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   (2 ) Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
European Communities by judgment of the Cour de cassation                     of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the
— chambre commerciale, financière et économique (Commer-                      coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation
cial, Financial and Economic Division) of 19 November 2002,                   or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit
                                                                              of television broadcasting activities (OJ L 202 of 30.7.1997,
received at the Court Registry on 27 November 2002, for a
                                                                              p. 60).
preliminary ruling in the case of Bacardi-Martini SAS against
Télévision France TF1 S.A., Groupe Jean-Claude Darmon S.A.
and Girosport Sàrl on:
1.     whether Directive 89/552/EEC (1) of 3 October 1989, in
       the version prior to that of Directive 97/36/EC (2) of
       30 June 1997, precludes national legislation such as
       Articles L.17 to L.21 of the French Code des débits de            Action brought on 28 November 2002 by the Com-
       boissons (Code of Licensed Premises) and Article 8 of             mission of the European Communities against the Italian
       Decree No 92280 of 27 March 1992 from prohibiting,                                               Republic
       for reasons of the protection of public health and on pain
       of criminal penalties, advertising for alcoholic drinks,
       whether of national origin or from other Member States                                       (Case C-430/02)
       of the Union, on television, whether in the form of
       advertising spots within the meaning of Article 10 of the
       directive or of indirect advertising as a result of panels                                    (2003/C 19/37)
       advertising alcoholic drinks appearing on television with-
       out thereby constituting surreptitious advertising within
       the meaning of Article 1(c) of the directive;
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 Novem-
2.     whether Article 49 EC and the principle of the free               ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
       movement of television broadcasts within the Union                represented by Claire-Françoise Durand and Roberto Amorosi,
       must be interpreted as precluding a national provision            acting as Agents.
       such as that in Articles L.17 to L.21 of the French Code
       des débits de boissons and Article 8 of Decree No 92280
       of 27 March 1992 which prohibits, for reasons of the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
       protection of public health and on pain of criminal
       penalties, advertising for alcoholic drinks, whether of
       national origin or from other Member States of the                —      Declare that, by failing to adopt all the provisions
       Union, on television, whether in the form of advertising                 necessary to repeal or amend the rules governing quality
       spots within the meaning of Article 10 of the directive or               labels of the Abruzzi Region the Region of Sicily, which
       of indirect advertising as a result of panels advertising                labels were introduced by Leggi Regionali (Regional Laws)
       alcoholic drinks appearing on television without thereby                 31/1982 and 14/1966, the Italian Republic has failed to
       constituting surreptitious advertising within the meaning                fulfil its obligations under Article 28 of the Treaty
       of Article 1(c) of the directive, from having the effect                 establishing the European Community;
       that operators responsible for the broadcasting and
       distribution of television programmes:                            —      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 19/22                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.1.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The system of quality labels introduced by the Regions of                  Article 10(1) of the Directive, as amended by Council Directive
Abruzzi and Sicily reserves the use of such labels solely to               94/31/EC (2) of 27 June 1994 amending Directive 91/689/EEC
products processed or prepared within those regions which                  on hazardous waste, requires Member States to bring into
comply with mandatory manufacturing rules. The quality of                  force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
the products concerned is therefore explicitly linked to their             necessary to comply with that Directive by 27 June 1995, and
place of origin in Abruzzi or Sicily, which serves to create in            to inform the Commission forthwith. Article 10(3) of the
the mind of the consumer the impression that products from                 Directive provides that Member States shall communicate to
those regions are of a quality superior to that of others. The             the Commission the texts of the main provisions of national
use of that designation tends therefore to encourage consumers             law which they adopt in the field governed by the Directive.
to purchase such products rather than imported products,
stimulating their sale to the detriment of products from other
Member States.                                                             As a result of an assessment of the national legislation
                                                                           communicated, the Commission found the existence of a
                                                                           number of inconsistencies and gaps in the United Kingdom’s
It follows that the system of quality labels introduced by the             transposition. As the United Kingdom authorities have not
Regions of Abruzzi and Sicily constitutes a barrier to intra-              communicated any amending legislation designed to remedy
Community trade contrary to Article 28 EC.                                 the situation, except for a draft concerning Gibraltar which
                                                                           has not yet been adopted, the Commission concludes that the
                                                                           United Kingdom has failed to transpose correctly Articles 1(4),
                                                                           1(5), 2(1), 2(2), 2(4), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5(1)
                                                                           and 5(2) of the Directive.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
                                                                           (2 ) OJ L 168, 2.7.1994, p. 28.
Action brought on 29 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the United
                              Kingdom
                         (Case C-431/02)
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del
                          (2003/C 19/38)                                   Giudice di Pace di Lendinara by order of that Court of
                                                                           29 October 2002 in the case of Dr Lucio Trombin against
                                                                                Insight World Education Systems Limited
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the                                         (Case C-432/02)
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 Novem-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Xavier Lewis and Minas Konstantinidis, acting                                         (2003/C 19/39)
as agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice di
1)    declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary         Pace di Lendinara (Office of the Lendinara Magistrate) of
      to comply with its obligations under Articles 1(4), 1(5),            29 October 2002, received at the Court Registry on 29 Novem-
      2(1), 2(2), 2(4), 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 4(1), 4(2), 4(3), 5(1)     ber 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Lucio
      and 5(2) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous                Trombin against Insight World Education Systems Limited on
      waste ( 1), the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                  the following questions:
      Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      this Directive and under the Treaty establishing the
      European Community;                                                  1.    Are the rules or administrative practices of the national
                                                                                legal order, such as those described at points III and IV
                                                                                hereof, compatible with the principles of the EC Treaty
2)    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                                 concerning the free movement of persons (Article 39 et


title: Case C-89/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the the House of Lords by order of that court of 3 November 2004 in United Utilities plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the the House of Lords by order of that court of 3 November 2004 in United Utilities plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
   (Case C-89/05)
   (2005/C 106/32)
   Language of the case: English
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the the House of Lords (United Kingdom) of 3 November 2004, received at the Court Registry on 18 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between United Utilities plc and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following question:

               1.

               Does the exemption for betting laid down in Article 13B(f) of the EC Sixth Council Directive of 17th May 1977 (Directive 77/388/EEC) (1) apply where a person (‘the Agent’) provides services on behalf of another person (‘the Principal’) of accepting bets from customers and communicating their acceptance by the Principal to customers where: (a) the actions of the Agent perform a necessary step in creating the legal relationship of a bet between the Principal and its customer and thereby consummate the betting transaction; but (b) the Agent makes no decisions as to the setting of odds, the odds being set by the Principal or in some cases determined by third parties under the rules of the sport in question; and (c) the Agent decides whether or not to accept bets on behalf of the Principal in accordance with criteria laid down by the Principal so that the Agent has no discretion?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1).


title: Case C-100/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 18 February 2005 in the proceedings between ASM Lithography B.V. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Zuid/kantoor Roermond

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 18 February 2005 in the proceedings between ASM Lithography B.V. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Zuid/kantoor Roermond
   (Case C-100/05)
   (2005/C 106/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of Appeal) (Netherlands) of 18 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 28 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between ASM Lithography B.V. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane Zuid/kantoor Roermond (Tax Inspectorate/Customs South, Roermond office) on the following question:

               1.

               With regard to compensating products such as those here in issue [point 2.1. of the reference for a preliminary ruling], which are considered to have been released for free circulation, must the customs debt be determined on the basis of the rules of assessment referred to in Article 122(c) of the Community Customs Code (CCC) (1) even where the person concerned has made no prior and express request in that regard?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is it necessary to grant a subsequent application — after notification of the amount by way of duty arising from the customs debt which is determined on the basis of the rules of assessment referred to in Article 121(1) of the CCC — for (re)calculation of the amount of customs debt on the basis of the rules of assessment referred to in Article 122(c) of the CCC which is made in connection with an application for repayment pursuant to Article 236 of the CCC?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of 19 October 1992, p. 1).


title: Case C-514/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2011 by Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-29/08 Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) v European Commission

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/2

         Appeal brought on 30 November 2011 by Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-29/08 Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) v European Commission
   (Case C-514/11 P)
   2012/C 58/02
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Liga para a Protecção da Natureza (LPN) (represented by: P. Vinagre e Silva, advogada)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside in part the judgment of the General Court, delivered on 9 September 2011 in Case T-29/08, in so far as it:

                           1.

                           dismisses the claims of the appellant, LPN, (without annulling the Commission decision of 22 November 2007);

                           2.

                           orders LPN to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission;

                     since, in both cases, the General Court makes various errors of assessment which vitiate its judgment.

               —

               Uphold the claims of the appellant, annulling the Commission decision of 22 November 2007 in so far as it relates to the documents and parts of documents to which it continued to be denied access by the decision of 24 October 2008.

               —

               Order the Commission to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the appellant at first and second instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The judgment of the General Court dismissed the action brought by LPN against the Commission decision of 22 November 2007, in so far as it relates to the documents and parts of documents to which the appellant continued to be denied access by the decision of 24 October 2008.
   The contested decision must be annulled on the grounds of the following errors of law:

               (i)

               Misinterpretation of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies; (1)

               (ii)

               Misinterpretation of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents; (2)

               (iii)

               Error of assessment in the apportionment of the costs of the proceedings.

         Consequently, the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance should be granted, and the Commission decision of 22 November 2007 annulled, in so far as it relates to the documents and parts of documents to which the appellant continued to be denied access by the decision of 24 October 2008.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.


title: Case C-208/02 P: Appeal brought on 4 June 2002 by LR af 1998 (Germany) GmbH [formerly Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH] against the judgment of 20 March 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-16/99 between Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 202/6                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.8.2002
—     Substantive errors in the application of Article 81(1) EC         Pleas and main arguments
      in relation to participation in the boycott of Powerpipe:
      since the appellant as a mere dealer was not able to
      contribute to a boycott its participation in a single             —     Infringement of substantive law
      meeting at which boycott measures by the others were
      discussed cannot be used as evidence of participation in                —     Infringement of the prohibition of retroactive effect
      such a boycott.                                                               and non-observance of the principle of protection
                                                                                of legitimate expectations
(1) Brugg Rohrsysteme GmbH v Commission [2002] ECR II-0000.
(2) OJ 1999, L 24, p. 1.                                                      —     By means of the ‘guidelines’ the Commission created
                                                                                a system of fines which is not within the limits of its
                                                                                authority under Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17
                                                                                and applied that new system to factual situations
                                                                                occurring before adoption of the ‘guidelines’. The
                                                                                applicant made the legitimate assumption that the
                                                                                practice in connection with the imposition of fines
                                                                                and the principles concerning assessment of cooper-
Appeal brought on 4 June 2002 by LR af 1998 (Germany)                               ation in administrative proceedings would not fun-
GmbH [formerly Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH]                                      damentally alter during the course of the adminis-
against the judgment of 20 March 2002 by the Fourth                                 trative proceedings concerned in this dispute and
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                              that fundamental changes would at any rate not be
Communities in Case T-16/99 between Lögstör Rör                                     applied with retroactive effect.
(Deutschland) GmbH and the Commission of the Euro-
                       pean Communities
                                                                        —     Legally incorrect exercise of discretion in the application
                                                                              and interpretation of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17:
                         (Case C-208/02 P)                                    First, adoption of the ‘guidelines’, together with the
                                                                              Commission’s new practice in setting fines, no longer
                          (2002/C 202/07)                                     comes within the margin of discretion permitted under
                                                                              Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and thus runs counter
                                                                              to the fundamental principle according to which the
                                                                              administration must act lawfully. Secondly, the actual
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 20 March 2002                     application of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 in regard
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                   to the applicant reveals a misuse of discretion in several
European Communities in Case T-16/99 between LR af 1998                       respects. In its decision the Commission did not appraise
(Germany) GmbH [formerly Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH]                      the individual differences in the duration of the infringe-
and the Commission of the European Communities (1) was                        ment and the intensity thereof. Furthermore, with the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  retroactive application of the ‘guidelines’ the Commission
ties on 4 June 2002 by LR af 1998 (Germany) GmbH [formerly                    is departing from its settled administrative practice in
Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH], represented by Hans-                         procedures leading to the imposition of fines whereby,
Joachim Hellmann, of Shearman & Sterlin in Mannheim, with                     until the well known cartonboard proceedings, it assessed
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                       the individual contribution to the infringement in accord-
Linklaters Loesch.                                                            ance with the Court’s settled case-law. Finally, application
                                                                              of the ‘guidelines’ leads to imposition of an exorbitant
                                                                              fine in relation to other addressees of the decision.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
1.    Annul Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October                      —     Infringement of essential formal requirements
      1998, notified to the plaintiff on 12 November 1998 and
      published in the Official Journal of the EC of 30 January               —     Infringement of the requirement to provide a state-
      1999 (2), relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the                    ment of reasons
      EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe
      Cartel) (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) in so far as it concerns the
      applicant,                                                              —     Infringement of the principle of the right to be heard
      in the alternative,
      reduce the fine.                                                  (1) Lögstör Rör (Deutschland) GmbH v Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities [2002] ECR II-0000.
2.    Order the defendant to pay the costs;                             (2) OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1.
      in the further alternative,
      set aside the judgment appealed against and refer the case
      back for a decision by the Court of First Instance.


title: Case T-434/11: Action brought on 3 August 2011 — Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank v Council

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/48

         Action brought on 3 August 2011 — Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank v Council
   (Case T-434/11)
   2011/C 282/88
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Gadhia and S. Ashley, Solicitors, H. Hohmann, lawyer, D. Wyatt, Queen's Counsel, and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul paragraph 1 of Table B of Annex I to Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP (1), in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Annul paragraph 1 of Table B of Annex I to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 (2), in so far as it relates to the applicant;

               —

               Declare Article 20(1)(b) of Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (3) inapplicable to the applicant;

               —

               Declare Article 16(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (4) inapplicable to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant breached procedural requirements, as:

                           —

                           it did not give adequate, precise and sufficient reasons, and

                           —

                           it failed to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not the criteria for designation of the applicant under the contested measures were met, as the transactions in respect of which the applicant has apparently been designated were either authorised or in conformity with the rulings and guidance of the competent national authority (the German Central Bank).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has breached the applicant’s legitimate expectations that it would not be sanctioned by imposing restrictive measures based on conduct that was authorised by the competent national authority. Alternatively, to sanction the applicant in such circumstances breached the principles of legal certainty and the applicant’s right to good administration.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the designation of the applicant is in violation of its property rights and/or the right to conduct its business and is in manifest violation of the principle of proportionality.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that if the power under which the defendant appears to have acted is mandatory, it is unlawful as being contrary to the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65)

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2011 of 23 May 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 26)

      (3)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39)

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1)


title: Case C-38/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Duty-free imports of goods for specifically military use)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-38/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Duty-free imports of goods for specifically military use)
   2010/C 113/02
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Â. Seiça Neves, J. Gomes and C. Guerra Santos, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by J. Molde, acting as Agent), Hellenic Republic (represented by E.-M. Mamouna and K. Boskovits, acting as Agents), Italian Republic (represented by I. Bruni, acting as Agent, assisted by G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato), Republic of Finland (represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1) and, for the period after 31 May 2000, Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130. p. 1) — Import free of customs duties of war material and goods for both military and civil use

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by refusing to calculate and pay to the Commission of the European Communities own resources which were not collected in the period from 1 January 1998 until 31 December 2002 inclusive, in relation to imports of equipment and goods for specifically military use, and by refusing to pay default interest arising from the failure to pay those own resources to the Commission of the European Communities, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations, respectively, under Articles 2 and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, as amended by Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 1355/96 of 8 July 1996, in so far as the period from 1 January 1998 to 30 May 2000 inclusive is concerned, and under the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources, in so far as the period from 31 May 2000 to 31 December 2002 is concerned;

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Hellenic Republic, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Finland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 October 2003 in Case T-392/02: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV v Council of the European Union (Directive 70/524/EEC — Community authorisation, linked to the person responsible for putting into circulation, of an additive in animal feedingstuff — Transitional rules — Withdrawal of the authorisation — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Conditions for withdrawal — Precautionary principle — Principles of equal treatment, legal certainty, sound administration and good faith)

text:
C 7/34                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.1.2004
1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
      EUR 3 000, in addition to the sum of EUR 1 500 already                                           INSTANCE
      awarded by the Appointing Authority.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action.                                                          of 9 July 2003
3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           in Case T-288/02 R: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.
                                                                                (Procedure for interim relief — Urgency — None)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/63)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        of 21 October 2003
in Case T-392/02: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV v Council of
                      the European Union (1)
                                                                           In Case T-288/02 R: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT),
                                                                           established in Pathumthani (Thailand), represented by H. Teis-
(Directive 70/524/EEC — Community authorisation, linked
                                                                           siers du Cros, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
to the person responsible for putting into circulation, of an
                                                                           bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
additive in animal feedingstuff — Transitional rules —
                                                                           (Agents: P.-J. Kuijper and B. Schöfer) — application for
Withdrawal of the authorisation — Action for annulment —
                                                                           suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission of
Admissibility — Conditions for withdrawal — Precautionary
                                                                           22 February 2002 to conclude a research contract with the
principle — Principles of equal treatment, legal certainty,
                                                                           Center for Energy-Environment Research and Development —
              sound administration and good faith)
                                                                           the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                           9 July 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                            (2004/C 7/62)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                                                                           2.    Costs are reserved.
In Case T-392/02: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV, established in
Weesp (Netherlands), represented by C. Meijer, F. Herbert and
M. L. Struys, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Balta
and M. Ruggery Laderchi), supported by Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: A. Bordes), application for the
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 of
23 September 2002 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concern-
ing additives in feedingstuffs as regards withdrawal of the                Action brought on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post
authorisation of an additive and amending Commission Regu-                 AG and Securicor Omega Express Limited against the
lation (EC) No 2430/1999 (OJ 2002 L 265, p. 1) — the                               Commission of the European Communities
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 October 2003, in                                           (Case T-343/03)
which it:
1.    Dismisses the application.                                                                      (2004/C 7/64)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and pay those
      incurred by the Council, including those incurred in the                                (Language of the case: German)
      interlocutory proceedings.
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, including those
      incurred in the interlocutory proceedings.                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(1) OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.                                                   European Communities on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post
                                                                           AG, Bonn (Germany) and Securicor Omega Express Limited,
                                                                           Sutton (United Kingdom), represented by T. Lübbig, lawyer.


title: Case C-347/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 July 2014  — New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 18 July 2014 — New Media Online GmbH v Bundeskommunikationssenat
   (Case C-347/14)
   2014/C 329/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: New Media Online GmbH

      Defendant: Bundeskommunikationssenat

      Additional party: The Bundeskanzler

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2010/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) be interpreted as meaning that the form and content of a service under examination can be considered to be sufficiently comparable to the form and content of television broadcasting if such services are also offered in television broadcasting which can be regarded as mass media and which are intended for reception by, and could have a clear impact on, a significant proportion of the general public?

               2.

               Should Article 1(1)(a)(i) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) be interpreted as meaning that an assessment of the principal purpose of a service offered in the electronic version of a newspaper can be based on a subsection mainly providing a collection of short videos, which in other sections of the website are used only to supplement text articles in the online newspaper?

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 95, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 13 July 2004 in Case C-27/04: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Article 104 EC — Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 — Stability and Growth Pact — Excessive government deficits — Council decisions under Article 104(8) and (9) EC — Required majority not achieved — Decisions not adopted — Action challenging ‘decisions not to adopt the formal instruments contained in the Commission's recommendations’ — Inadmissible — Action challenging ‘Council conclusions’)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/16

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Full Court)
   of 13 July 2004
   in Case C-27/04: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Action for annulment - Article 104 EC - Regulation (EC) No 1467/97 - Stability and Growth Pact - Excessive government deficits - Council decisions under Article 104(8) and (9) EC - Required majority not achieved - Decisions not adopted - Action challenging ‘decisions not to adopt the formal instruments contained in the Commission's recommendations’ - Inadmissible - Action challenging ‘Council conclusions’)
   (2004/C 228/31)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-27/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Petite, A. van Solinge and P. Aalto) v Council of the European Union (Agents: J.-C. Piris, T. Middleton and J. Monteiro) — application for annulment of Council measures of 25 November 2003, namely:

               —

               decisions not to adopt, in respect of the French Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany, the formal instruments contained in Commission recommendations pursuant to Article 104(8) and (9) EC;

               —

               conclusions adopted in respect of each of those two Member States, entitled ‘Council conclusions on assessing the actions taken by [the French Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany respectively] in response to recommendations of the Council according to Article 104(7) of the Treaty establishing the European Community and considering further measures for deficit reduction in order to remedy the situation of excessive deficit’, in so far as those conclusions involve holding the excessive deficit procedure in abeyance, recourse to an instrument not envisaged by the Treaty and modification of the recommendations decided on by the Council under Article 104(7) EC,

         the Court (Full Court), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares the action of the Commission of the European Communities inadmissible in so far as it seeks annulment of the failure of the Council of the European Union to adopt the formal instruments contained in the Commission's recommendations pursuant to Article 104(8) and (9) EC;

               2.

               Annuls the Council's conclusions of 25 November 2003 adopted in respect of the French Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany respectively, in so far as they contain a decision to hold the excessive deficit procedure in abeyance and a decision modifying the recommendations previously adopted by the Council under Article 104(7) EC;

               3.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 35 of 7.2.2004.


title: Case C-300/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Imtech Marine Belgium NV v Radio Hellenic SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Conditions for certification — Rights of the debtor — Review of the judgment)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Imtech Marine Belgium NV v Radio Hellenic SA
   (Case C-300/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Conditions for certification - Rights of the debtor - Review of the judgment))
   (2016/C 068/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Imtech Marine Belgium NV

      Defendant: Radio Hellenic SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, read in the light of Article 288 TFEU, must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to establish in their national law a review procedure such as that referred to in Article 19 of that regulation.

               2.

               Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to certify a judgment delivered in absentia as a European Enforcement Order, the court ruling on such an application must satisfy itself that its national law effectively and without exception allows for a full review, in law and in fact, of such a judgment in the two situations referred to in that provision and that it allows the periods for challenging a judgment on an uncontested claim to be extended, not only in the event of force majeure, but also where other extraordinary circumstances beyond the debtor’s control prevented him from contesting the claim in question.

               3.

               Article 6 of Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the certification of a judgment as a European Enforcement Order, which may be applied for at any time, can be carried out only by a judge.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.


title: Case C-183/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública v Banco Mais SA (Taxation — VAT — Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 17(5), third subparagraph, point (c) — Article 19 — Deduction of input tax — Leasing transactions — Mixed use goods and services — Rule for determining the amount of the VAT deduction — Derogation — Conditions)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Fazenda Pública v Banco Mais SA
   (Case C-183/13) (1)

   ((Taxation - VAT - Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 17(5), third subparagraph, point (c) - Article 19 - Deduction of input tax - Leasing transactions - Mixed use goods and services - Rule for determining the amount of the VAT deduction - Derogation - Conditions))
   2014/C 315/18
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fazenda Pública

      Defendant: Banco Mais SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Point (c) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, from requiring a bank, which, inter alia, carries out leasing activities, to include in the numerator and denominator of the fraction used to determine a single deductible proportion for all of its mixed use goods and services just the part of the rental payments made by customers as part of their leasing agreements that corresponds to interest, where that use of the goods and services is primarily caused by the financing and management of those contracts, that being a matter for the national court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case C-323/05: Action brought on 24 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/15

         Action brought on 24 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom
   (Case C-323/05)
   (2005/C 271/28)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu and Nicola Yerrell, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               find that the United Kingdom has failed its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1) and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof;

               2.

               condemn the United Kingdom to bear the costs of the procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 15 January 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 11, 15.01.2002, p. 4


title: Case C-1/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Cartier parfums — lunettes SAS, Axa Corporate Solutions assurances SA v Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transports SARL, Inko Trade s.r.o., Jaroslav Matěja, Groupama Transport (Request for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 27(2) — Lis pendens — Article 24 — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Establishment of jurisdiction of the court first seised by reason of appearance being entered without objection by the parties or the adoption of a final judgment)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Cartier parfums — lunettes SAS, Axa Corporate Solutions assurances SA v Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transports SARL, Inko Trade s.r.o., Jaroslav Matěja, Groupama Transport
   (Case C-1/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 27(2) - Lis pendens - Article 24 - Prorogation of jurisdiction - Establishment of jurisdiction of the court first seised by reason of appearance being entered without objection by the parties or the adoption of a final judgment))
   2014/C 112/14
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Cartier parfums — lunettes SAS, Axa Corporate Solutions assurances SA

      Defendants: Ziegler France SA, Montgomery Transports SARL, Inko Trade s.r.o., Jaroslav Matěja, Groupama Transport

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 27(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001, L 12, p. 1) — Lis pendens — Establishment of the jurisdiction of the court first seised because neither party has claimed that it lacks jurisdiction or because it has adopted a decision which is irrevocable for any reason whatsoever.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 27(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, except in the situation where the court second seised has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of that regulation, the jurisdiction of the court first seised must be regarded as being established, within the meaning of that provision, if that court has not declined jurisdiction of its own motion and none of the parties has contested its jurisdiction prior to or up to the time at which a position is adopted which is regarded in national procedural law as being the first defence on the substance submitted before that court.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 November 2003 in Case C-66/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2000/39/EC)

text:
C 21/8                     EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             24.1.2004
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                                              (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 November 2003
                         of 27 November 2003
                                                                               in Case C-66/03: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-332/02: Commission of the European Communi-                                               ties v French Republic (1)
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                 Ireland (1)
                                                                               (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                                                                                implement — Directive 2000/39/EC)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
                 transpose Directive 1999/13/EC)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/14)
                             (2004/C 21/13)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-332/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: X. Lewis) with an address for service in Luxembourg, v                 In Case C-66/03, Commission of the European Communities
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:                   (Agent: N. Yerrell), with an address for service in Luxembourg,
P. Ormond, then by C. Jackson, assisted by M. Demetriou):                      v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Bergeot-
Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,              Nunes): Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                  and/or communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations
with Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to                   mission Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a
the use of organic solvents in certain activities and installations            first list of indicative occupational exposure limit values
(OJ 1999 L 85, p. 1) or, at least, by failing to inform the                    in implementation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the
Commission of such measures, the United Kingdom of Great                       protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks
Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations              related to chemical agents at work (OJ 2000 L 142, p. 47), the
under Article 15 of that directive, the Court (Third Chamber),                 French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                  Treaty, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas,
R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate                  President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 Nov-                  R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass,
ember 2003, in which it:                                                       Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 November 2003, in
                                                                               which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council               1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
      Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission
      of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of                   Directive 2000/39/EC of 8 June 2000 establishing a first list
      organic solvents in certain activities and installations, the                  of indicative occupational exposure limit values in implemen-
      United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has                       tation of Council Directive 98/24/EC on the protection of the
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive;           health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical
                                                                                agents at work, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under that Directive;
2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
      Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                               2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.                                                     (1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 1999 in Case T-277/97: Ismeri Europa Srl v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Non-contractual liability - MED programmes - Report of the Court of Auditors - Criticisms concerning the applicant)

text:
C 265/12                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.9.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 June 1999
                          of 9 March 1999                                  in Case T-277/97: Ismeri Europa Srl v Court of Auditors
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
in Case T-273/97: Pierre Richard v European Parliament (1)                 (Non-contractual liability — MED programmes — Report
                                                                           of the Court of Auditors — Criticisms concerning the
                                                                                applicant)
(Officials — Recruitment procedure — Application of                                                 (1999/C 265/23)
Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations — Recruitment of a
person from the reserve list of an open competition reserved
for nationals of the new Member States — Rejection of                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                            candidature)
                                                                           In Case T-277/97: Ismeri Europa Srl, whose registered office is
                                                                           in Rome, represented by Sergio Ristuccia and Gian Luigi
                                                                           Tosato, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in
                          (1999/C 265/22)                                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Sainte-
                                                                           Croix v Court of Auditors of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: Jean-Maria Stenier, Jan Inghelram and Paola Giusta)
                                                                           — application under Articles 235 EC and 288, second para-
                                                                           graph, EC (ex Articles 178 and 215) for compensation for
                                                                           damage purportedly suffered by the applicant following criti-
                     (Language of the case: French)                        cisms directed at it by the Court of Auditors in Special
                                                                           Report No 1/96 on the MED programmes (submitted under
                                                                           Article 188C(4), second paragraph, of the EC Treaty) together
                                                                           with the Commission’s replies (OJ 1996 C 240, p. 1) — the
In Case T-273/97, Pierre Richard, official of the European                 Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jae-
Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by André                   ger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi Judges; A. Mair, Admin-
Lutgen, and, for the oral procedure, by Jeanne Feltgen, of the             istrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 June 1999,
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at               the operative part of which is as follows:
their Chambers, 1, Rue Jean-Pierre Brasseur, against European
Parliament (Agent: João Sant’Anna) — application, first, for              1. The action is dismissed.
annulment of the decision of the European Parliament rejecting
the applicant’s candidature for the post advertised by Notice              2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
of Vacancy No 8011 and, second, for annulment of the
appointment of Mrs S. to that post and of the procedure
leading to that appointment — the Court of First Instance                  (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998.
(Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, and
R. Garcia-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; A. Mair, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 March
1999, in which it:
1. Annuls the procedure for the appointment of Mrs S. to the post              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     of Head of Division A 3 and the Decision of 9 January 1997.
                                                                                of 27 April 1999
2. Annuls the Decisions of 11 February and 23 July 1997 rejecting          in Case T-283/97: Germain Thinus v Commission of the
     the applicant’s candidature and his complaint respectively.                              European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Consideration of
3. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.                                 comparative merits — Other factors to be taken into
                                                                                consideration — Provision of a statement of reasons)
                                                                                (1999/C 265/24)
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-283/97: Germain Thinus, an official of the Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities, represented by Jean-
                                                                           Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure, Françoise Parmentier and,


title: Case C-113/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Förvaltningsdomstolen (Finnish Supreme Administrative Court) — by decision of that court of 8 March 2001 in the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket (Medical Products Agency)

text:
C 150/12               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.5.2001
—     Infringement of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now                  (2) if so, is the Member State of nationality entitled to refuse:
      Article 87 EC): The Court of First Instance failed to take
      into consideration the legal context: La Poste is required             a)     to revoke any preliminary obstacle to the entry of
      to offer any of Chronopost’s competitors who so requests                      the non-national spouse into that Member State (on
      access to its network on similar terms, which clearly                         the facts of this case an outstanding deportation
      indicates that the relationship between La Poste and                          order); and
      Chronopost does not entail a selective advantage for the
      benefit of Chronopost.
                                                                             b)     to accord the non-national spouse a right of entry
                                                                                into its territory?
—     Breach of the obligation to state reasons: The Court of
      First Instance ought properly to have explained the
      reasoning which led it to conclude — solely because of
      the existence of a reserved sector — that La Poste’s
      manner of taking into account its full costs was unsatisfac-
      tory.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta
                                                                        Förvaltningsdomstolen (Finnish Supreme Administrative
                                                                        Court) — by decision of that court of 8 March 2001 in
                                                                        the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket
                                                                                (Medical Products Agency)
                                                                                (Case C-113/01)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom), by order of that court                                           (2001/C 150/23)
of 3 October 2000, in the case of Secretary of State for
        the Home Department against Hacene Akrich
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by a decision of the Högsta För-
                        (Case C-109/01)                                 valtningsdomstolen of 8 March 2001, which was received at
                                                                        the Court Registry on 14 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Paranova Oy, Esbo, v Läkemedelsverket on the
                        (2001/C 150/22)                                 following questions:
                                                                        1.   Is it compatible with Articles 28 and 30 EC for a national
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       agency to decide that a marketing authorisation for
European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal                   a medicinal product imported as a parallel import
Tribunal (United Kingdom) of 3 October 2000, which was                       automatically comes to an end if the original marketing
received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2001, for a                        authorisation for the medicinal product has been with-
preliminary ruling in the case of Secretary of State for the                 drawn at the holder’s request for reasons unconnected
Home Department against Hacene Akrich, on the following                      with the effectiveness or the safety of the medicinal
question:                                                                    product and despite the fact that the product has a valid
                                                                             marketing authorisation in the Member State from which
                                                                             the parallel imports come?
Where a national of a Member State is married to a third
country national who does not qualify under national legis-             2.   If Community law imposes restrictions or conditions on
lation to enter or reside in that Member State, and moves to                 the right of a national agency to decide that a marketing
another Member State with the non-national spouse, intending                 authorisation for parallel imports comes to an end in the
to exercise Community law rights by working there for only a                 situation referred to in Question 1, what importance
limited period of time in order thereafter to claim the benefit              should be accorded to the facts that
of Community law rights when returning to the Member State
of nationality together with the non-national spouse:
                                                                             a)     the holder of the original marketing authorisation
                                                                                has obtained a new marketing authorisation for a
(1) is the Member State of nationality entitled to regard the                       medicinal product designed to replace the original
      intention of the couple, when moving to the other                             medicinal product but that new product is not in
      Member State, to claim the benefit of Community law                           the same pharmaceutical form (tablets instead of
      rights when returning to the Member State of nationality,                     capsules) and the active ingredient is not exactly the
      notwithstanding the non-national spouse’s lack of qualifi-                    same (magnesium Omeprazole instead of Omepra-
      cation under national legislation, as a reliance on Com-                      zole); on the other hand, the national agency con-
      munity law in order to evade the application of national                      siders that the medicinal products are bioequivalent
      legislation; and                                                              and that they have the same therapeutic effect;
 ---pagebreak--- 19.5.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 150/13
     b)    subsequent control of the effectiveness and safety of       Pleas in law and main arguments
           the medicinal product is possibly made more diffi-
           cult by the fact that the marketing authorisation for
           the original medicinal product has been withdrawn;          The period for compliance laid down in the directive referred
                                                                       to in the conclusions of the Commission expired on 1 January
                                                                       1993 without the United Kingdom having enacted the pro-
     c)    the medicinal product imported as a parallel import
                                                                       visions necessary to implement Articles 5(1) and 6(1) of that
           has been widely used over many years in Member
                                                                       directive. The United Kingdom is therefore in breach of
           States and it is improbable that its continued sale
                                                                       Articles 3 and 13 of the said directive.
           presents a danger to public health?
3.   If, in the situation referred to in Question 1, Articles 28
     and 30 EC allow it to be found that the marketing                 (1) OJ L 76, 23.03.1992, p. 14.
     authorisation granted for a parallel import has expired,
     may it be decided that the marketing authorisation for
     the parallel import expired immediately the original
     marketing authorisation was withdrawn, without
     allowing the parallel importer any time to adapt his
     activity? Do any of the circumstances referred to in
     Question 2 affect the question whether it may be decided
     that the marketing authorisation for a parallel import
     expires immediately?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
                                                                       (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court
                                                                       of 14 December 2000, in the case of KB against 1) National
                                                                       Health Service Pensions Agency, 2) Secretary of State for
                                                                                Health
                                                                                (Case C-117/01)
Action brought on 14 March 2001 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                (2001/C 150/25)
                        (Case C-115/01)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
                        (2001/C 150/24)                                (England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 14 December 2000,
                                                                       which was received at the Court Registry on 15 March 2001,
                                                                       for a preliminary ruling in the case of KB against 1) National
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the            Health Service Pensions Agency, 2) Secretary of State for
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 March               Health, on the following question:
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwrightas agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                       Does the exclusion of the female-to-male transsexual partner
                                                                       of a female member of the National Health Service Pension
                                                                       Scheme, which limits the material dependant’s benefit to her
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            widower, constitute sex discrimination in contravention of
                                                                       Article 141 EC and Directive 75/117 (1)?
—    declare that, having failed to implement Articles 5(1) and
     6(1) of Council Directive 92/13/EEC (1) of 25 February
     1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrat-          (1) Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
     ive provisions relating to the application of Community               approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
     rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating             application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ
     in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications                L 45, 19.02.1975, p. 19).
     sectors into national law, the United Kingdom is in breach
     of Articles 3 and 13 of the said directive;
—    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.


title: Case C-200/10 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 February 2010 in Case T-340/07: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/21

         Appeal brought on 26 April 2010 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 9 February 2010 in Case T-340/07: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Commission
   (Case C-200/10 P)
   2010/C 179/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, Δικηγόρος)

      Other party: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the decision of the General Court, to order the Commission to make good the damage suffered by the Appellant as a result of its failure to comply with contractual obligations in the context of the performance of the EDC-53007 EEBO/27873 contract relating to the project entitled ‘e-Content Exposure and business Opportunities’ and to order the Commission to pay the Applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that the General Court did not give a sufficiently clear statement of reasons for rejecting the a series of arguments put forward by the Appellant.
   The Appellant submits the General Court committed an error in law in adopting a wrong interpretation of the wording of article 7 (6) of the contract which refers to the obligation of the contractors to take appropriate action to cancel or reduce their commitments upon receipt of the letter from the Commission notifying them of the termination of the contract.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 November 2004 in Case T-402/02: August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Figurative mark representing the form of a twisted wrapper (shape of a sweet wrapper) — Subject-matter of the application — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Distinctive character acquired though use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Right to be heard — Article 73(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion — Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/22

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 10 November 2004
   in Case T-402/02: August Storck KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Figurative mark representing the form of a twisted wrapper (shape of a sweet wrapper) - Subject-matter of the application - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Distinctive character acquired though use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Right to be heard - Article 73(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Examination of the facts by OHIM of its own motion - Article 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 19/48)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-402/02: August Storck KG, established in Berlin (Germany), represented by H. Wrage-Molkenthin, T. Reher, A. Heise and I. Rohr, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (Agents: B. Müller and G. Schneider) – action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2002 (Case R 0256/2001-2) refusing registration of a trade mark representing a twisted wrapper (shape of a sweet wrapper) – the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.


title: Case C-527/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2007 — Generics (UK) Ltd, Regina v Licensing Authority (acting via the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/36

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 28 November 2007 — Generics (UK) Ltd, Regina v Licensing Authority (acting via the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency)
   (Case C-527/07)
   (2008/C 22/64)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Generics (UK) Ltd, Regina

      Defendant: Licensing Authority (acting via the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency)
   Questions referred

               (1)

               Where a medicinal product falling outside the scope of the Annex to Regulation 2309/93 (1) has been placed on the market in a Member State, (Austria) under its national authorisation procedure prior to the accession of that Member State to the EEA or the EC and:

                           (a)

                           that Member State has subsequently acceded to the EEA and then the EC, and as part of the conditions of its accession it has transposed into its national law the authorisation provisions of Directive 65/65 (now Directive 2001/83 (2)), no transitional provisions applying in this respect;

                           (b)

                           the product in question has remained on the market in that Member State for some years after its accession to the EEA and the EC;

                           (c)

                           following the accession of that Member State to the EEA and the EE, the marketing authorisation for the product in question has been varied by adding a new indication, and the variation was considered by the authorities of that Member State to be consistent with the requirements of Community law;

                           (d)

                           the dossier of the product in question was not updated in accordance with Directive 65/65 (now Directive 2001/83) after that Member State's accession to the EEA and the EC; and

                           (e)

                           a product containing the same active ingredient has subsequently been authorised under Article 6 of Directive 2001/83 and placed on the market in the EC;

                     is the medicinal product to be considered to be ‘a reference medicinal product which is or has been authorised under Article 6 … in a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83, and if so which of the above conditions is/are decisive in this respect?

               (2)

               In circumstances where the competent authority of a reference Member State erroneously refuses an application for a marketing authorisation made under Article 10(1) of Directive 2001/83 in the context of the decentralised procedure provided for in that Directive, on the ground that the medicinal product referred to in Question 1 above was not a ‘reference medicinal product’ within the meaning of Article 10(1), what guidance, if any, does the Court of Justice think it appropriate to provide as to which circumstances the national court ought to take into consideration when it comes to determine whether the breach of Community law is a sufficiently serious breach within the meaning of the judgment in Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame?

      (1)  OJ L 214 p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 311 p. 67.


title: Case C-19/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade, SA (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(1)(a) and (b), second indent — Provision of services — Commercial agency contract — Performance in several Member States)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien — Austria) — Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH v Silva Trade, SA
   (Case C-19/09) (1)

   (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1)(a) and (b), second indent - Provision of services - Commercial agency contract - Performance in several Member States)
   2010/C 113/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger GmbH

      Defendant: Silva Trade SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Wien (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) and (b), second indent, of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction — Scope — Action for payment of compensation for termination of a contract for the provision of services — Services provided under a contract in different Member States

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that that provision is applicable in the case where services are provided in several Member States;

               2.

               The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that where services are provided in several Member States, the court which has jurisdiction to hear and determine all the claims arising from the contract is the court in whose jurisdiction the place of the main provision of services is situated. For a commercial agency contract, that place is the place of the main provision of services by the agent, as it appears from the provisions of the contract or, in the absence of such provisions, the actual performance of that contract or, where it cannot be established on that basis, the place where the agent is domiciled.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Case C-346/07: Order of the President of the Court of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-346/07) (1)

   (2008/C 64/50)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-134/15: Action brought on 23 March 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM (SOCIAL.COM)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/32

         Action brought on 23 March 2015 — salesforce.com v OHIM
   (SOCIAL.COM)
   (Case T-134/15)
   (2015/C 171/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: salesforce.com, Inc. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: A. Nordemann, M. Maier, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘SOCIAL.COM’ — Application for registration No 12 245 411

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 January 2015 in Case R 1752/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea(s) in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjuction with Article 7 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjuction with Article 7 (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-255/11: Action brought on 20 May 2011 — Fellah v Council

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/28

         Action brought on 20 May 2011 — Fellah v Council
   (Case T-255/11)
   2011/C 211/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Zakaria Fellah (New York, USA) (represented by: G. Collard, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               hold that, in relation to the applicant, Mr Zakaria Fellah, Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 and Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011, published on 7 April 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union, are factually unfounded;

               —

               in consequence:

                           —

                           annul Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 and Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011;

                           —

                           in the alternative, order that the name of Mr Zakaria Fellah be removed from the lists annexed to the said regulation and the said decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons, inasmuch as the grounds for including the name of the applicant in the list of persons and bodies to which restrictive measures apply were sterotyped, without mention of any precise factual element allowing the relevance of the inclusion of that name to be assessed.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging manifest error of assessment, in so far as:

                           —

                           the applicant is accused of financing the administration of Mr L. Gbagbo, whereas, first, the applicant essentially carried out his functions with Mr L. Gbagbo at a time when the latter was recognised as legitimate head of state by the international community, and, second, the applicant did not have resources allowing him to finance the adminstration of Mr L. Gbagbo;

                           —

                           the contested measures appear to be devoid of purpose since 11 April 2011, Mr L. Gbagbo having been captured on that date.


title: Case F-73/11: Action brought on 25 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/53

         Action brought on 25 July 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-73/11)
   2011/C 282/101
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment centre stage of the open competition EPSO/AD/181/10.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Personnel Selection Office (hereinafter, EPSO) of 20 August 2010 and 15 September 2010, informing him that he was not admitted to the assessment centre stage of the open competition EPSO/AD/181/10 (hereinafter, the contested decision);

               —

               together with, and so far as necessary, annul the EPSO decision of 15 April 2011, rejecting his complaint of 10 November 2010 against the aforementioned decision (hereinafter, the rejection decision);

               —

               consequently, order his reintegration into the selection process, if necessary by the implementation of a new round of tests;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.