title: Case T-253/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by José Fernandez Tunon against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/25

         Action brought on 4 July 2005 by José Fernandez Tunon against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-253/05)
   (2005/C 229/56)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 July 2005 by José Fernandez Tunon, resident in Beersel (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 (notified on 22 March 2005 and received on 24 March 2005) by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 23 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, formerly of the auxiliary staff (Category D, Group VIII, Grade 4) who, following his appointment as a member of the contract staff, had his remuneration reduced whilst his duties remained unchanged, challenges the decision of the administrative authority fixing his grade and remuneration as a member of the contract staff, in Function Group I, grade 1, step 1.
   The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in support of his application:

               —

               infringement of Articles 3a(1)(a) and Article 80(2) and (3) of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS) and a manifest error of assessment in that the applicant, at the time of his appointment as a member of the contract staff, was graded in a function group which is not commensurate with the description of his qualifications or the actual tasks to which he is assigned;

               —

               infringement of Article 80(3) of the CEOS in the procedure followed to select posts likely to be filled by contract staff and to define the function groups to which those posts would be assigned, in that that work was carried out by a task force, the composition and method of operation of which have not been disclosed and cannot be verified, whereas the Staff Regulations require that the Staff Regulations Committee be consulted;

               —

               infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in that, because of the contested decision, the applicant has been required to perform the same functions as those to which he been assigned earlier, for much lower remuneration and in a context of total uncertainty, whereas identical functions are performed within the Commission by Community officials enjoying the benefits of the Staff Regulations, a high degree of security of employment and considerably higher remuneration.


title: Joined Cases T-582/11 and T-583/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Solar-Fabrik v OHIM (Premium XL and Premium L) (Community trade mark — Applications for the Community word marks Premium XL and Premium L — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 January 2013 — Solar-Fabrik v OHIM (Premium XL and Premium L)
   (Joined Cases T-582/11 and T-583/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Applications for the Community word marks Premium XL and Premium L - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 63/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Solar-Fabrik AG für Produktion und Vertrieb von solartechnischen Produkten (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Two actions brought against two decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2011 (Case R 245/2011-1 and Case R 246/2011-1 respectively), concerning applications for registration as Community trade marks of the word sign Premium XL and the word sign Premium L respectively

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-582/11 and T-583/11 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders Solar-Fabrik AG für Produktion und Vertrieb von solartechnischen Produkten to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 November 2004 in Case C-18/03 P Vela Srl and Tecnagrind SL v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — EAGGF — Financial participation in projects — Withdrawal of the Fund's financial aid)

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/2

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 25 November 2004
   in Case C-18/03 P Vela Srl and Tecnagrind SL v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - EAGGF - Financial participation in projects - Withdrawal of the Fund's financial aid)
   (2005/C 69/03)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-18/03 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 16 January 2003 by Vela Srl, established in Milan (Italy), and Tecnagrind SL, established in Barcelona (Spain), (Lawyer: M. Carretta), the other party to the proceedings being the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, assisted by M. Moretto) – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 25 November 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Vela Srl and Tecnagrind SL shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 April 1995 in Joined Cases T-80/89, T-81/89, T-83/89, T-87/89, T-88/89, T-90/89, T-93/89, T-95/89, T-97/89, T-99/89, T-100/89, T-101/89, T-103/89, T-105/89, T-107/89 and T-112/89: BASF AG and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Procedure - Competence - Commission's rules of procedure)

text:
No C 137/ 16          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    3 . 6 . 95
      Removal from the register of Case C-l 00/94 ( )                      Removal from the register of Case C-176/94 f 1 )
                          ( 95/C 137/37 )                                                      ( 95/C 137/38 )
By order of 9 March 19 95 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal              By order of 1 March 1995 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-l 00/94 : Commission of the              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .                          from the register of Case C-176/94 : Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
(») OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
                                                                     (') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                    COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                        of 6 April 1995                              the Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss , 15 Cote d'Eich,
                                                                     T-93/89 , Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap AS ( Statoil ), whose
in Joined Cases T-80/89, T-81 /89, T-83/89, T-87/89,                 registered office is in Stavanger (Norway ), represented by
T-88/ 89 , T-90/89 , T-93 /89 , T-95 / 89 , T-97/89 , T-99/89,       Graham Child , Solicitor, with an address for service in
T-100/89, T-101 /89, T-103/89, T-105/89, T-107/89 and
T-l 12/ 89 : BASF AG and Others v. Commission of the
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss, 15
                                                                     Cote d'Eich, T-95/89 , Enichem SpA, whose registered office
                 European Communities (')                            is in Milan ( Italy ), represented by Mario Siragusa, of the
(Competition — Procedure — Competence                       —        Rome Bar, Giuseppe Scassellati Sforzolini, of the Bologna
              Commission 's rules of procedure)                      Bar, and Gianfranco Arcidiacono, of the Milan Bar, with an
                          ( 95/C 137/39 )                            address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Arendt and Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt,
                                                                     T-97/89 , Hoechst AG , whose registered office is in
(Languages of the case: German, English, Spanish , French,           Frankfurt-am-Main ( Germany), represented by Hans
                      Italian and Dutch)
                                                                     Hellmann and Hans-Joachim Voges, Rechtsanwalte,
                                                                     Cologne , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
In Joined Cases T-80/89 , BASF AG, whose registered office           Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, T-99/89 ,
is in Ludwigshafen ( Germany ), represented by Ferdinand             Imperial Chemical Industries pic ( ICI ), whose registered
Hermanns and Karl Kaiser, Rechtsanwalte, Diisseldorf,                office is in London, represented by David Vaughan QC and
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers            David Anderson, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,
of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, T-81 /89 , Monsanto               instructed by Victor White , Richard Coles and Andrew
Company, whose registered office is in St Louis , Missouri           Ransom, Solicitors, with an address for service in
( United States of America ), represented by Clive Stanbrook         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong and Konsbruck,
QC and John Ratliff, Barrister, of the Bar of England and            14A Rue des Bains , T-100/89 , Neste Oy, whose registered
Wales , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             office is in Espoo ( Finland ), represented by Georges van
Chambers of Arsene Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire,             Hecke, Avocat with right of audience before the Belgian
T-83/89 , NV DSM and DSM Kunststoffen BV, whose                      Court of Cassation, and Gerwin Van Gerven, of the Brussels
registered offices are in Heerlen ( Netherlands ), represented       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
by Inne G. F. Cath, of the Hague Bar, with an address for            Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe, T-101 /89 ,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong and                  Repsol Quimica SA, whose registered office is in Madrid ,
Konsbruck, 14A Rue des Bains, T-87/89 , Orkem SA, whose              represented by Jose Perez Santos , of the Madrid Bar, with an
registered office is in Paris, represented by Dominique              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Voillemot and Joelle Salzmann, of the Paris Bar , with an            Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, T-103/89 , Shell
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 International Chemical Company Ltd, whose registered
Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, T-88/89 , Bayer AG,                  office is in London, represented by Kenneth Parker QC , of
whose registered office is in Leverkusen ( Germany ),                the Bar of England and Wales, instructed by John Osborne,
represented by Oliver Axster and Holger Wissel,                      Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Rechtsanwalte , Diisseldorf, Michel Waelbroeck, Denis                Chambers of Elvinger and Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, T-105/89 ,
Waelbroeck and Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels             Montedison SpA, whose registered office is in Milan ( Italy ),
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                represented by Giuseppe Celona, Avvocato with right of
Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, T-90/89 ,                audience before the Italian Court of Cassation, Giorgio
Atochem SA, whose registered office is in Puteaux ( France ),        Aghina, of the Milan Bar, and Piero Ferrari,, of the Rome
represented by Xavier de Roux and Charles-Henri Leger, of            Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 ---pagebreak--- 3 . 6 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 137/ 17
Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 Rue Philippe II,                        annulment      of   Commission      Decision  89/515/EEC     of
T-107/89 , Chemie Holding AG, whose registered office is in            2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
Linz ( Austria ), represented by Otfried Lieberknecht,                 the EEC Treaty ( IV/3 1 . 553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989
Rechtsanwalt, Diisseldorf, with an address for service in              L 260 , p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber ),
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 22 Cote d'Eich,               composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.
T-l 12/89 , The Dow Chemical Company, whose registered                 Vesterdorf, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts , Judges;
office is in Midland , Michigan ( United States of America ),          H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
represented by Arved Deringer, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,                  which the Court :
Pierre Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, and Jose Perez Santos, of
the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg              I. dismisses the application;
at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter , 11 Rue Goethe,
v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : J.                2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Currall, B. J. Drijber, F. E. Gonzalez Diaz, E. Morgan de
Rivery, R. Morresi , N. Forwood and A. Bohlke ) —                      (») OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
application for annulment of Commission Decision
89/191 /EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( IV/31.866 , LdPE )
( OJ 1989 L 74 , p. 21 ), — the Court of First Instance ( Second
Chamber ), composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President,
D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, C. P. Briët and J. Biancarelli,         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April                                    ( First Chamber )
 1995 , in which it :
                                                                                of 6 April 1995
 1 . dismisses the objection ofinadmissibility put forward by          in Case T-142/89 : Usines Gustave Boel SA v. Commission
      the Commission in Case T-l 03/89;                                               of the European Communities (^
                                                                        (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the
2 . annuls Commission Decision 89/191 /EEC of                                                         Treaty)
      21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
      Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.866, LdPE);                                             ( 95/C 137/41 )
 3 . dismisses the claims for a declaration that Commission                            (Language of the Case: French)
      Decision 89/191 /EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to
      a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty             In Case T-142/89 : Usines Gustave Boel SA, established in
       (IV/31.866, LdPE) is non-existent;
                                                                        Brussels , represented by Georges Vandersanden and Lucette
 4 . dismisses as inadmissible the claim for compensation in            Defalque, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
       Case T-l 05/89 ;                                                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Rue
                                                                        Guillaume , v. Commission of the European Communities
 5 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                            ( Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa, J. Currall, A. Coutrelis and N.
                                                                        Coutrelis ) — application for the annulment of Commission
 (') OJ No C 182 , 19 . 7 . 1989 and OJ No C 177, 13 . 7 . 1989 .       Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989 relating to a
                                                                        proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553
                                                                        — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L 260 , p. 1 ) — the Court of
                                                                        First Instance ( First Chamber ) composed of H. Kirschner,
                                                                        President, C. W. Bellamy, B. Vesterdorf, R.
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges , H. Jung,
                                                                        Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which the
                          ( First Chamber )                             Court :
                          of 6 April 1995
 in Case T-141/89: Tréfileurope Sales SARL v. Commission                1 . reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
               of the European Communities (*)                              by Article 3 of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of
                                                                            2 August 1 989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
  (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the                          of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh) to
                                Treaty)                                     ECU 440 000;
                            ( 95/C 137/40 )
                                                                        2 . dismisses the application as regards the remaining
                 (Language of the Case: French)                             claims;
 In Case T-141 /89 : Trefileurope Sales SARL, formerly called           3 . orders the applicant to bear its costs and to pay
 Trefilarbed SA, then Trefilarbed Luxembourg-Saarbrücken                    three-fifths of the Commission 's costs;
 SARL, established in Luxembourg, represented by
 Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address for             4 . orders the Commission to bear two-fifths of its costs.
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch,
  11 Rue Goethe , v. Commission of the European                          (M OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
  Communities ( Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa, J. Currall, A.
  Coutrelis and N. Coutrelis ) — application for the


title: Case C-5/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 January 2013 — Ferenc Tibor Kovács v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 3 January 2013 — Ferenc Tibor Kovács v Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság
   (Case C-5/13)
   2013/C 114/35
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szombathelyi Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ferenc Tibor Kovács

      Defendant: Vas Megyei Rendőr-főkapitányság

      Question referred

   Should the law on non-discrimination, freedom of movement for workers and the right to a fair trial, be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State such as Paragraph 25/B of Law I of 1988, according to which only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates granted by the Hungarian authorities may be used on the roads in Hungary, and the fulfilment of the requirements which allow exemption from that provision may be established only during the inspection?


title: Case C-203/06: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/16/EEC — Doctors — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/14

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-203/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/16/EEC - Doctors - Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 95/23)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Walkerová and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: T. Boček, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have transposed, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 44 of that directive;

               2)

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 April 2004 inCase C-286/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale de Treviso): Bellio F.lli against Prefettura di Treviso (‘Agriculture — Animalhealth — Protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies— Use of animal proteins in animal feed’)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 1 April 2004
   in Case C-286/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale de Treviso): Bellio F.lli against Prefettura di Treviso
       (1)

   (‘Agriculture - Animal health - Protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Use of animal proteins in animal feed’)
   (2004/C 106/21)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-286/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale di Treviso (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Bellio F.lli and Prefettura di Treviso – on the interpretation of Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein (OJ 2000 L 306, p. 32) and Commission Decision 2001/9/EC of 29 December 2000 concerning control measures required for the implementation of Decision 2000/766 (OJ 2001 L 2, p. 32) – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               The first indent of Article 2(2) of Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein, and Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2001/9/EC of 29 December 2000 concerning control measures required for the implementation of Decision 2000/766, together with the other Community rules on which those provisions are based, must be interpreted as meaning that the presence, even accidental, of unauthorised substances in fish flour used in the production of feedingstuffs intended for animals other than ruminants is not permitted and that they allow traders no level of tolerance. The destruction of consignments of contaminated flour is a preventive measure provided for by Article 3(1) of Decision 2000/766.

               2.

               Article 13 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as meaning that Decisions 2000/766 and 2001/9 are not incompatible therewith.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 1999 in Case T-97/95 (92): Sinochem National Chemicals Import & Export Corporation v Council of the European Union (Taxation of costs)

text:
C 246/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.8.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter,
                                                                          11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the European Union
                         of 25 March 1999                                 (Agents: initially Yves Cretien, Legal Adviser, and Antonio
                                                                          Tanca, then solely Mr Tanca, assisted by Hans-Jürgen Rabe and
                                                                          Georg M. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the European
in Case T-76/98: Claudine Hamptaux v Commission of the                    Communities, (Agent: Nicholas Khan) and Furfural Español
                   European Communities (1)                               SA, established in Alcantarilla (Spain), represented by José
                                                                          Rivas de Andrés, of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service
(Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative                     in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12
                               merits)                                    Rue Marie Adélaïde — application for taxation of the costs to
                                                                          be paid by the applicant to the intervener Furfural Español SA,
                          (1999/C 246/57)                                 following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29
                                                                          January 1998 in Case T-97/95 Sinochem v Council [1998]
                                                                          ECR II-85 — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
                    (Language of the case: French)                        composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, P.
                                                                          Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                          made an order on 22 March 1999, the operative part of which
In Case T-76/98: Claudine Hamptaux, an official of the                    is as follows:
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
sels, represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian            The total amount of costs to be reimbursed by the applicant to the
Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, v Commission of the European                intervener Furfural Español SA is fixed at BEF 331 238.
Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser and Florence
Duvieusart-Clotuche) — application, first, for annulment of
the decision of the Commission not to promote the applicant               (1) OJ 1995 C 159.
to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions procedure and, second,
for an order requiring the defendant to pay compensation
amounting to BEF 833 000 — the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President,
and V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 March 1999, in
which it:
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. Annuls the Commissions’ decision not to promote the applicant
     to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions procedure;
                                                                                of 29 March 1999
2. Dismisses the claim for damages;
                                                                          in Case T-77/96: Garage Massol v Commission of the
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                   European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.                                                (Competition — Action for failure to act brought against
                                                                          the Commission for failure to follow up a complaint —
                                                                          No need to adjudicate — Application for annulment —
                                                                              Application for damages — Manifestly inadmissible)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/59)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         of 22 March 1999
                                                                          In Case T-77/96: Garage Massol, established in Fréjairolles
in Case T-97/95 (92): Sinochem National Chemicals                         (France), represented by Jean Louis Portolano, of the Aix en
Import & Export Corporation v Council of the European                     Provence Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                             Union (1)                                    the Chambers of Nathan Roy, 18 Rue des Glacis, against the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially,
                        (Taxation of costs)                               Giuliano Marenco and Guy Charrier, subsequently Giuliano
                                                                          Marenco and Loïc Guérin) — application for a declaration that
                                                                          the Commission failed, contrary to the Treaty, to decide on
                          (1999/C 246/58)                                 the compliant lodged by the applicant, pursuant to Article 3(2)
                                                                          of Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962, First
                                                                          regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ,
                   (Language of the case: English)                        English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87), annulment of an
                                                                          alleged implied rejection by the Commission of that complaint,
In Case T-97/95 (92): Sinochem National Chemicals Import &                annulment of an implied refusal to send to the applicant
Export Corporation, established in Beijing, represented by                certain documents in the file and an application seeking
Jean-François Bellis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for            compensation for damage suffered — the Court of First


title: Case T-242/03: Action brought on 23 June 2003 by Ulf Jacoby against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 200/32               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          23.8.2003
Action brought on 23 June 2003 by Ulf Jacoby against the                  for restitutio in integrum occasioned by his failure to pay the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                    appeal fee in good time.
                        Marks and Designs)
                                                                          By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal rejected the
                          (Case T-242/03)                                 application and declared that the appeal was to be regarded as
                                                                          not having been lodged.
                          (2003/C 200/57)                                 The applicant submits that usually time-limits are entered in a
                                                                          diary for that purpose kept by his former lawyer in order to
                                                                          comply with and monitor the time-limits for bringing appeals
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of      and payment of the appeal fee, and the time-limits are only
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was            then crossed out of that diary after they have been observed.
                         submitted: German)                               In order to avoid any accidental crossing out of an entry in
                                                                          the diary, the member of that lawyer's staff responsible for
                                                                          overseeing the time-limits is required to initial any crossing out
                                                                          of a deadline. Since that long-standing, consistently reliable
                                                                          member of his staff had crossed out and initialled the time-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          limit entered in respect of the appeal case, the lawyer acting
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                          for the applicant was entitled to assume that the appeal fee
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                          had been paid in good time. Since the failure to observe the
23 June 2003 by Ulf Jacoby, Lahnau (Germany), represented
                                                                          time-limit for payment of the appeal fee was not caused by
by K. Müller, lawyer, of Kanzlei Krieger Froese & Kollegen. Leo
                                                                          any fault of the lawyer acting for the applicant, the application
Pharmaceutical Products BV, Weesp (Netherlands), was also a
                                                                          for restitutio in integrum is founded and the action must be
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                          granted.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
      14.3.2003, thereby granting the applicant's application to
      the Board of Appeal for restitutio in integrum, occasioned
      by his failure to observe the time-limit for payment of the
      appeal fee;                                                         Action brought on 30 June 2003 by Flavia Angeletti
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—     declare that the appeal is to be regarded as having been
      lodged.
                                                                                (Case T-244/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant sought registration of the word mark ‘leovat’               An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
with the defendant office in respect of goods in Classes 3, 4, 5          nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
and 31 (application No 657221). Leo Pharmaceutical Products               European Communities on 30 June 2003 by Flavia Angeletti,
BV, proprietor of the international word mark ‘Leo’ for goods             residing in Nice (France), represented by Juan Ramon Iturriaga-
in Classes 3 and 5, lodged an opposition to registration.                 goitia and Karine Delvolvé, avocats.
By decision of 6 July 2001, the Opposition Division allowed               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the opposition on the ground that there was a likelihood of
confusion owing to the high level of similarity of the goods
and the signs. The applicant lodged an appeal against that                —     annul the decision of the Directorate-General Personnel
decision in good time. On 19 September 2001, the Registry of                    and Administration of 5 May 2003;
the Board of Appeal informed the applicant that the appeal fee
had not been received by the office before the expiry, on                 —     order a challenge to two of the members of the medical
6 September 2001, of the time-limit for bringing an appeal,                     committee;
and gave the applicant the opportunity to submit his observa-
tions on the matter. On 24 September 2001 the applicant
effected payment of the appeal fee and simultaneously applied             —     order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.


title: Case C-327/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/374/EEC — Liability for defective products — Liability of the supplier for a defective product)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-327/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/374/EEC - Liability for defective products - Liability of the supplier for a defective product)
   (2007/C 199/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Rasmussen, A. Caeiros and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (OJ 1985 L 210, p. 29) — National legislation which makes the distributor of a defective product liable in the same way as the producer
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               By adopting and maintaining in force provisions which make intermediaries in the distribution chain liable under the same conditions as a manufacturer, contrary to Article 3(3) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               The Kingdom of Denmark is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.


title: Case C-249/03: Action brought on 10 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against (1) "TASEIS TRENDS" (Transport Environment Development Systems) and (2) Marios Kontaratos and Others

text:
C 184/26               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            2.8.2003
Action brought on 10 June 2003 by the Commission of the                   Commission. Since the defendant did not produce the evidence
European Communities against (1) ‘TASEIS TRENDS’                          needed to overturn the audit's conclusions, the Commission
(Transport Environment Development Systems) and (2)                       considered the contracts to be terminated and sought reimbur-
                  Marios Kontaratos and Others                            sement of the sums overpaid.
                          (Case C-249/03)                                 The Commission pleads:
                          (2003/C 184/46)                                 —     in support of its principal claim: Article 8,2 of Annex II
                                                                                to the contracts, which provides that the Commission
                                                                                may terminate the contract inter alia if, in order to obtain
                                                                                the financial contribution of the Commission, or any
An action against (1) ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ (Transport Environ-                       other advantage under the contract, a contractor has
ment Development Systems) and (2) Marios Kontaratos and                         made false or incomplete statements for which it may
Others was brought before the Court of Justice of the                           properly be held responsible;
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of             —     in support of the principal head of claim regarding
its Legal Service, Maria Bra, of the Brussels Bar, and                          payment of interest: the second subparagraph of
K. Kapoutzidou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service                  Article 8,4 of Annex II to the contracts, which provides
in Luxembourg.                                                                  that interest is due from the date on which the payments
                                                                                in question were received, at the rate applied by the
                                                                                European Monetary Cooperation Fund (now the European
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                    Central Bank) increased by two percentage points;
—     allow the application in its entirety;                              —     in support of the alternative head of claim regarding
                                                                                payment of interest: Article 94 of Commission Regulation
—     order the defendant partnership ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ and the                   No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed
      defendants who are members thereof to reimburse to the                    rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the
      Commission the entire amount of the wrongly made                          Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 (2).
      advance payments received by the defendant partnership
      from the Community in respect of the contracts at issue,
      that is to say the sum of EUR 195 435, together with                (1) OJ L 206, 30.7.1988, p. 1.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 315, 16.12.1993, p. 1.
      contractual interest in respect of the period from the date
      of mispayment, the interest calculated in that way
      amounting on 30 September 2002 to EUR 84 489,14
      and thereafter EUR 35,45 (29,17 plus 6,28) per day until
      the defendant's debt has been fully discharged, or, in the
      alternative, interest for late payment under Article 94 of
      Commission Regulation No 3418/93 on the whole sum
      of EUR 195 345, at a rate of 5,50% from 31 December
      1998 (when the period laid down by the order for                    Action brought on 11 June 2003 by the Commission of
      payment expired) until the defendant's debt has been fully          the European Communities against the Portuguese
      discharged, amounting up until 30 September 2002 to                                                Republic
      EUR 40 315,83 and thereafter EUR 29,45 per day;
                                                                                (Case C-251/03)
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2003/C 184/47)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 June
The defendant ‘TASEIS TRENDS’ is a civil-law partnership                  2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
governed by Greek law, which has as its object the promotion              represented by António Caeiros and Gregorio Valero Jordana,
of research and the dissemination of information on proble-               acting as Agents.
matical issues in relation to the environment, development,
town planning, transport and so forth. It concluded with the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Commission, within the framework of Council Decision 88/
416/EEC of 29 June 1988 on a Community programme in the
                                                                          —     declare that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures to
field of road transport informatics and telecommunications
                                                                                ensure that water intended for human consumption meets
(Drive) (1), the following contracts: (i) Contract BATT — V
                                                                                the requirements laid down in Annex I to Council Direc-
2029 (implementation of the project ‘BATT — Behaviour and
                                                                                tive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of
ATT’) and (ii) Contract MIRO — V 2060 (implementation of
                                                                                water intended for human consumption, the Portuguese
the project ‘Mobility impact, reactions and opinions’).
                                                                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7
                                                                                (6) of that directive; and
Serious financial contraventions on the part of the defendant
were found following audits by the Court of Auditors and the              —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-80/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel v Alina Antónia Destapado Pão Mole Juliana, Cristiana Micaela Caetano Juliana

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/30

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 14 February 2017 — Fundo de Garantia Automóvel v Alina Antónia Destapado Pão Mole Juliana, Cristiana Micaela Caetano Juliana
   (Case C-80/17)
   (2017/C 144/39)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fundo de Garantia Automóvel (Motor Vehicle Guarantee Fund)

      Defendants: Alina Antónia Destapado Pão Mole Juliana, Cristiana Micaela Caetano Juliana

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Must Article 3 of Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 (1) (in force at the date of the accident) be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to take out civil liability motor insurance extends even to the situations in which the vehicle is, at the owner’s choice, immobilised in a private courtyard, away from the public highway?
               or,
               In those circumstances, is the owner of the vehicle not under an obligation to insure, regardless of the liability of the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel to injured third parties, in particular in cases of the unlawful use of a motor vehicle belonging to another?

               (2)

               Must Article 1(4) of Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 (2) (in force at the date of the accident) be interpreted as meaning that the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel — which because there was no civil liability insurance contract, paid the relevant compensation to the third parties injured by the traffic accident caused by the motor vehicle which, without the owner’s knowledge or authorisation, was removed from the private land where it was immobilised — has the right of subrogation against the vehicle’s owner regardless of whether that owner was liable for the accident?
               or,
               Does the subrogation by the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel in relation to the owner depend on the requirements for civil liability having been met, in particular that, when the accident occurred, the owner had effective control of the vehicle?

      (1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English special edition 1972(II) p. 360).

      (2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).


title: Case C-590/10: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Köppl v Freistaat Bayern (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 91/439/EEC — Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) — Article 7(1) — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Withdrawal of national driving authorisation — Category B driving licence issued by another Member State — Disregard of the residence requirement — Subsequent issue, by the same Member State, of a Category C driving licence — Observance of the residence requirement — Whether obligatory to hold a valid licence for Category B vehicles at time of issue of licence for Category C vehicles)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/3

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Wolfgang Köppl v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-590/10) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 91/439/EEC - Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) - Article 7(1) - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Withdrawal of national driving authorisation - Category B driving licence issued by another Member State - Disregard of the residence requirement - Subsequent issue, by the same Member State, of a Category C driving licence - Observance of the residence requirement - Whether obligatory to hold a valid licence for Category B vehicles at time of issue of licence for Category C vehicles)
   2012/C 109/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wolfgang Köppl

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation, in the light of Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, of Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Category B driving licence issued by a Member State, without regard to the residence requirement, to a national of another Member State after the withdrawal of his national licence and after the expiry of the period in which an application for a new licence is prohibited — Subsequent issue, by the same Member State, of a Category C driving licence respecting the residence requirement — Whether the Member State of residence can refuse to recognise the validity of those licences

      Operative part of the order

   Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Commission Directive 2000/56/EC of 14 September 2000, do not preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise authorisations to drive Category B and C vehicles issued by another Member State to an individual in respect of whom the first Member State has adopted measures under Article 8(2) of that directive, where the authorisation to drive Category B vehicles was issued in the second Member State without regard, as is apparent from the details specified in the driving licence issued in respect of that authorisation, to the normal residence requirement laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of that directive and where the authorisation to drive Category C vehicles was issued on the basis of the first authorisation and the non-compliance with that normal residence requirement is not apparent in the new driving licence issued in respect of that authorisation to drive Category C vehicles.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 June 2002 in Case C-286/01: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Telecommunications — Open network — Universal service)

text:
C 180/8                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             27.7.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (First Chamber)                                                                 (Third Chamber)
                             of 6 June 2002                                                                  of 13 June 2002
in Case C-274/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         in Case C-286/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                  ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                                                        ties v French Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                        (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 98/76/EC — Failure to transpose within the                           Telecommunications — Open network — Universal service)
                           prescribed period)
                                                                                (2002/C 180/14)
                            (2002/C 180/13)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-274/01, Commission of the European Communities                      In Case C-286/01, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: F. van                    (Agents: P. Nemitz and B. Mongin, and, subsequently, H. van
de Craen): Application for a declaration that, by failing to                  Lier) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and A. Bréville-
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                     Viéville, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues and V. Dan):
necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of                        Application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into
1 October 1998 amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission                       force, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations
to the occupation of road haulage operator and road passenger                 and administrative provisions necessary to implement Direc-
transport operator and mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-               tive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
cates and other evidence of formal qualifications intended to                 of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network
facilitate for these operators the right to freedom of establish-             provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service
ment in national and international transport operations                       for telecommunications in a competitive environment (OJ
(OJ 1998 L 277, p. 17), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to                  1998 L 101, p. 24) and, in particular, Articles 6(3) and (4), 10,
fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (First                 21 and 26 thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the                 obligations under Article 32 of that directive and Article 249
Chamber, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate                 EC, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: F. Macken,
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June                  President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and
2002, in which it:                                                            J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
                                                                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 June 2002, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to        1.     Declares that, by failing to bring into force, within the
      comply with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 October 1998                       prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative
      amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission to the occupation                     provisions necessary to implement Directive 98/10/EC of the
      of road haulage operator and road passenger transport operator                 European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 1998
      and mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other                     on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice
      evidence of formal qualifications intended to facilitate for these             telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a
      operators the right to freedom of establishment in national and                competitive environment and, in particular, Articles 6(3) and
      international transport operations, the Kingdom of Belgium                     (4), 10, 21 and 26 thereof, the French Republic has failed to
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                     fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of that directive;
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                         2.     Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                     (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Action brought on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-172/98)

text:
C 234/14                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
     that is the case, there is no scope left for the exercise        falls within the scope of the EC Treaty because, although
     of discretion.                                                   their main purpose is not to maximise or redistribute
                                                                      profits, the associations in question may provide services
                                                                      for consideration or obtain income, thus participating in
Ð (In the alternative) Incorrect exercise of discretion in            economic life. The expression profit-making' used in the
     making an assessment under Article 92(3)(a) and (c) of           second paragraph of Article 58 of the EC Treaty refers to
     the EC Treaty.                                                   a Community law concept and does not relate to the
                                                                      domestic law of the Member States.
Ð In so far as the Commission considers that there was a
     breach of Article 52 of the EC Treaty, that too is not
     capable of founding the lawfulness of the contested
     decision. Article 52 of the EC Treaty does not
     constitute a suitable legal basis for the contested
     decision.                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                      Amministrativo per la Sardegna by judgment of that court
                                                                      of 12 February 1998, in the case of Holst Italia SpA
                                                                      against Municipality of Cagliari and Ruhrwasser AG
                                                                                International Water Management SpA
                                                                                (Case C-176/98)
Action brought on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the                                         (98/C 234/26)
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                          (Case C-172/98)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           (98/C 234/25)                              European Communities by judgment of the Tribunale
                                                                      Amministrativo per la Sardegna (Administrative Court,
                                                                      Sardinia), of 12 February 1998, received at the Court
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                  Registry on 11 May 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities               case of Holst Italia SpA against Municipality of Cagliari
on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the European                       and Ruhrwasser AG International Water Management
Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal               SpA on the following question:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                          whether Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992
                                                                      relating to the coordination of procedures for the award
                                                                      of public service contracts allows a company to prove that
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           it possesses the technical and financial qualifications laid
                                                                      down for admission to a published tendering procedure
                                                                      for the award of a public service contract by relying on
1. declare that, by requiring, as appropriate, the presence           the references of another person who is the sole
     of a Belgian associate on the board of an association            shareholder of one of the companies which own the first-
     or a minimum number of associates of Belgian                     mentioned company.'
     nationality which must, moreover, constitute a
     majority, before an association may be incorporated or           (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
     granted legal personality, the Kingdom of Belgium has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of the EC
     Treaty;
2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                      Action brought on 18 May 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                Luxembourg
                                                                                (Case C-188/98)
The legislation referred to, namely:
                                                                                (98/C 234/27)
Ð the Law of 25 October 1919 which confers legal
     personality on international associations whose objects          An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
     are philanthropic, religious, scientific, artistic or            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     pedagogical',                                                    Communities on 18 May 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of
                                                                      its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
Ð the Law of 27 June 1921 which confers legal                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
     personality on non-profit-making associations . . .'             Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-52/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Eleftheri tileorasi AE ‘ALTER CHANNEL’ , Konstantinos Giannikos v Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis, Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis (Directive 89/552/EEC — Television broadcasting activities — Article 1(d) — ‘Surreptitious advertising’ — Intentional nature — Presentation of cosmetic dental treatment during a television broadcast)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Eleftheri tileorasi AE ‘ALTER CHANNEL’, Konstantinos Giannikos v Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis, Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis
   (Case C-52/10) (1)

   (Directive 89/552/EEC - Television broadcasting activities - Article 1(d) - ‘Surreptitious advertising’ - Intentional nature - Presentation of cosmetic dental treatment during a television broadcast)
   2011/C 226/08
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Eleftheri tileorasi AE ‘ALTER CHANNEL’, Konstantinos Giannikos

      Defendants: Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis, Ethniko Simvoulio Radiotileorasis

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 1(c) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by Article 1(c) of Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60) — Television programme consisting in the presentation of cosmetic dental treatment — Concept of ‘surreptitious advertising’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(d) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997, is to be interpreted as meaning that the provision of payment or of consideration of another kind is not a necessary condition for establishing the element of intent in surreptitious advertising.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-76/16: Order of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE) (European Union trade mark — Application for EU word mark AEGYPTISCHE ERDE — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Rejection of the application — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/18

         Order of the General Court of 1 March 2017 — Ikos v EUIPO (AEGYPTISCHE ERDE)
   (Case T-76/16) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for EU word mark AEGYPTISCHE ERDE - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Rejection of the application - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded in law))
   (2017/C 202/32)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ikos GmbH (Lörrach, Germany) (represented by: A. Masberg, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 December 2015 (Case R 1257/2015-1) concerning an application for registration of word sign AEGYPTISCHE ERDE as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Ikos GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 4.4.2016.


title: Case C-84/14 P: Appeal brought on 18 February 2014 by Forgital Italy SpA against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 4 December 2013 in Case T-438/10 Forgital Italy SpA v Council of the European Union

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/14

         Appeal brought on 18 February 2014 by Forgital Italy SpA against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 4 December 2013 in Case T-438/10 Forgital Italy SpA v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-84/14 P)
   2014/C 129/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Forgital Italy SpA (represented by: R. Mastroianni and V. Turinetti di Priero, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Forgital Italy claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order of 4 December 2013 in Case T-438/10 by which the General Court dismissed as inadmissible the action for annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 566/2010 of 29 June 2010 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products (OJ 2010 L 163, p. 4), in so far as that regulation alters the designation of certain goods in respect of which the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties are suspended;

               —

               refer Case T-438/10 back to the General Court for judgment, pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union;

               —

               order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Forgital Italy alleges infringement of the following: Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court; the right to an effective remedy referred to in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; the general principle of effective judicial protection of rights; and the right of defence. It submits that the General Court erred in law in so far as it raised an objection of inadmissibility of its own motion in respect of the action brought by Forgital Italy in Case T-438/10 without setting out the reasons of fact and law on which that objection was based or allowing the parties to submit their comments in that regard, as required under Article 113 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. In that regard, the fact that the General Court addressed a question to the parties relating to the possible implications for Case T-438/10 of its order of 5 February 2013 in Case T-551/11 BSI v Council is irrelevant, because, contrary to the finding of the General Court, the parties should not have been required to infer from that question that the General Court was considering the possibility of raising an objection of inadmissibility of its own motion.
   Secondly, Forgital Italy claims that the General Court erred in law with regard to the interpretation of the last part of the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in conjunction with the general principle of effective judicial protection referred to in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. According to Forgital Italy, Council Regulation (EU) No 566/2010 of 29 June 2010 does not constitute a regulatory act which entails implementing measures.


title: Removal from the register of C-88/96

text:
C 7/12                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                10. 1. 98
          Removal from the register of C-88/96 (1)                          Removal from the register of C-183/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/32)                                                        (98/C 7/36)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court            By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-88/96 (reference for a         removal from the register of Case C-183/96 (Reference for
preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione           a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
Prima Civile): Igino Mazzola Srl v. Amministrazione delle          Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
Finanze dello Stato.                                               Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 210, 20. 7. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-121/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/33)                                       Removal from the register of C-204/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/37)
By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-121/96 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht                 removal from the register of Case C-204/96 (reference for
Hamburg): Sultan Bulut v. Deutsche Bundespost.                     a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): E. F.
                                                                   Liebelt GmbH & Co. KG v. Marianne Seidel.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 247, 24. 8. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-128/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/34)                                       Removal from the register of C-278/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/38)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-128/96 (Reference for          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           removal from the register of Case C-278/96 (Reference for
Section)): Trinity Alimentari Italia SpA v. Amministrazione        a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,
delle Finanze dello Stato.                                         Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil
                                                                   Section)): Vezza SpA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
                                                                   dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 318, 26. 10. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-155/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/35)
                                                                            Removal from the register of C-354/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/39)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-155/96 (Reference for          By order of 23 October 1997, the President of the Sixth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova,                 Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Sezione prima civile (District Court, Genoa, First Civil           Communities has ordered the removal from the register
Section)): Icat Food Srl v. Amministrazione delle Finanze          of Case C-354/96: Commission of the European
dello Stato.                                                       Communities v. Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 180, 22. 6. 1996.                                         (1) OJ C 388, 21. 12. 1996.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2002 in Joined Cases T-269/99, T-271/99 and T-272/99: Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa and Others v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Decision to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Tax measures — Selective nature — Legitimate expectations — Misuse of powers)

text:
C 19/28                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          25.1.2003
Mediterranean area; and, in Case T-151/99, for the annulment                1999 C 351, p. 29, and OJ 2000 C 71, p. 8), the Court of First
of Commission Decision C (1999) 533 of 4 March 1999                         Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
withdrawing the assistance made to Tecnagrind SL by Com-                    of: M. Jaeger, President, R. García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts,
mission Decision C (96) 2235 of 13 September 1996,                          P. Lindh and J. Azizi, Judges; Registrar: B. Pastor, Deputy
concerning grant of the EAGGF, Guidance Section, contri-                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2002, in which
bution under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88, in                        it:
connection with Project No 95.ES.06.005 entitled ‘Demonstra-
tive project for the processing if castor-oil plants (Ricinus
Communis) in agricultural undertakings for the extraction of                1.     Dismisses the applications;
aromatic essences’, the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,                2.     Orders the applicants to pay their own costs together with those
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,                     of the Commission.
has given a judgment on 7 November 2002, in which:
1.     The applications are dismissed.                                      (1 ) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
2.     In each case, the applicants shall bear their own costs and pay
       those of the Commission.
( 1) OJ C 246, 28.8.99.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 23 October 2002
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                in Joined Cases T-346/99, T-347/99 and T-348/99: Territo-
                                                                            rio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and
                                                                              Others v Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                        of 23 October 2002
in Joined Cases T-269/99, T-271/99 and T-272/99: Territo-                   (State aid — Decision to initiate the procedure under
rio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Gui-                       Article 88(2) EC — Actions for annulment — Admissibility
púzcoa and Others v Commission of the European Com-                         — Tax measures — Selective nature — Legitimate expec-
                             munities ( 1)                                                     tations — Misuse of powers)
(State aid — Decision to initiate the procedure under Article                                          (2003/C 19/52)
88(2) EC — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Tax
measures — Selective nature — Legitimate expectations —
                          Misuse of powers)                                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
                           (2003/C 19/51)
                                                                            In Joined Cases T-346/99, T-347/99 and T-348/99, Territorio
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio
                                                                            Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa,
                                                                            Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya,
                                                                            represented by A. Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente,
In Joined Cases T-269/99, T-271/99 and T-272/99, Territorio                 lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa,                     F. Santaolalla Gadea, G. Rozet and G. Valero Jordana): Appli-
Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava,                  cation for annulment of the Commission’s decision, notified
Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya,              to the Spanish authorities by letter of 29 September 1999, to
represented by A. Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente,                   initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC against the
lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                  Spanish State in relation to tax aid in the form of a reduction
F. Santaolalla Gadea, G. Rozet and G. Valero Jordana): Appli-               in the tax base for firms in the Provinces of Álava, Viscaya and
cation for annulment of the Commission’s decisions, notified                Guipúzcoa (OJ 2000 C 55, p. 2), the Court of First Instance
to the Spanish authorities by letters of 17 August 1999, to                 (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC against the                   M. Jaeger, President, R. García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh
Spanish State in relation to tax aid in the form of a 45 % tax              and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, has given a
credit in the Provinces of Álava, Viscaya and Guipúzcoa (OJ                 judgment on 23 October 2002, in which it:


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 19 May 1998 in Case C-132/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): Bent Jensen and Korn- og Foderstofkompagniet A/S v Landbrugsministeriet, EF-Direktoratet (Community law - Principles - Set-off of amounts paid under Community law against debts payable to a Member State - Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 - Support system for producers of certain arable crops)

text:
C 234/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.7.98
refund of money paid over, a situation in which the                       markets. In that regard, the capacity in which the
purchaser of a package holiday who has paid the travel                    Member State grants aid under Council Regulation
organiser for the costs of his accommodation before                       (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a
travelling on his holiday is compelled, following the travel              support system for producers of certain arable crops,
organiser's insolvency, to pay the hotelier for his                       the fact that the rules of that Member State on set-off
accommodation again in order to be able to leave the                      require, for set-off to be available, reciprocity of debts
hotel and return home.                                                    as between debtor and creditor, the practice generally
                                                                          followed by the Member State regarding set-off and
(1) OJ C 9 of 11.1.1997.                                                  the legal basis of the debt to the State involved in the
                                                                          set-off are of no importance, provided that the
                                                                          national authorities ensure that the effectiveness of
                                                                          Community law is not in any way undermined and
                                                                          that economic operators enjoy equal treatment. It is
                                                                          for the national court to determine whether that is the
                                                                          case.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 19 May 1998                                2. On a proper construction of Article 15(3) of
                                                                          Regulation No 1765/92, Member States are not
in Case C-132/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 precluded from requiring a national intervention
the éstre Landsret): Bent Jensen and Korn- og                             agency to effect set-off with debts payable to the State
Foderstofkompagniet A/S v Landbrugsministeriet, EF-                       in the case of a beneficiary of compensatory payments.
                        Direktoratet (1)
(Community law Ð Principles Ð Set-off of amounts paid                3. On a proper construction of Article 10(1) of
under Community law against debts payable to a Member                     Regulation No 1765/92, payment of the compensatory
State Ð Common agricultural policy Ð Regulation (EEC)                     payments to which it refers may be deferred until it
No 1765/92 Ð Support system for producers of certain                      has been verified whether the State has any claim
                          arable crops)                                   against the beneficiary thereof for which set-off may
                         (98/C 234/14)                                    be available, provided that the payment is made no
                                                                          later than 31 December in the year in question.
                (Language of the case: Danish)                       (1) OJ C 189 of 22.7.1995.
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-132/95: reference to the Court under Article 177                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of the EC Treaty from the éstre Landsret (Eastern                                            of 19 May 1998
Regional Court) (Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Bent               in Case C-3/96: Commission of the European
Jensen and Korn- og Foderstofkompagniet A/S and                      Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands, supported by
Landbrugsministeriet, EF-Direktoratet Ð on the                                    the Federal Republic of Germany (1)
interpretation of Community law with regard to set-off                  (Conservation of wild birds Ð Special protection areas)
between amounts paid under Community law and debts
payable to a Member State and of Articles 10(1) and                                           (98/C 234/15)
15(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June
1992 establishing a support system for producers of                                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
certain arable crops (OJ L 181 of 1.7.1992, p. 12) Ð the
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers),                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                         published in the European Court Reports)
J. L. Murray, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and L. Sevón,
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment            In Case C-3/96: Commission of the European
on 19 May 1998, in which it has ruled:                               Communities, represented by W. Wils, v Kingdom of the
                                                                     Netherlands, represented by M. A. Fierstra and J. S. van
                                                                     den Oosterkamp, supported by the Federal Republic of
1. Community law does not preclude a Member State                    Germany, represented by E. Röder and S. Maaû Ð
     from effecting set-off between an amount due to a               application for a declaration that, by failing sufficiently to
     beneficiary of aid payable under Community                      designate special protection areas within the meaning of
     legislation and an outstanding debt to that Member              Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
     State. The position would be different only if that             1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103 of
     practice were to interfere with the proper functioning          25.4.1979, p. 1), the Kingdom of the Netherlands has
     of the common organisation of the agricultural                  failed to comply with its obligations under that directive


title: Case C-146/12: Action brought on 26 March 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/4

         Action brought on 26 March 2012 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-146/12)
   2012/C 157/05
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch and G. Braun, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to bring into force or to communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 1, Article 2, Article 4(2), Article 5(2), (5), (6) and (8), Article 6(1), (2), (3), (9) and (10), Articles 7, 8 and 9, Article 11(4) and (5), Article 12, Article 13(5), Articles 15, 16 and 17, Article 18(1), (2), (4) and (5), Article 19(3), Articles 20 to 27, Article 28(4) and (6), Articles 32 to 35 and Annexes I to IX of Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community; (1)

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a daily penalty payment in the sum of EUR 215 409,60, payable to the own resources account of the European Union, on account of its failure to fulfil its obligation to notify transposing measures;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on 19 July 2010.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 191, p. 1.