title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2003 in Case T-25/02: Michel Sautelet v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Staff report — Late preparation — Action for compensation)

text:
10.1.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 7/33
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by G. Bouneou and
                                                                          F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                       of 22 October 2003                                 against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                          D. Martin) — application, first, for annulment of the Com-
in Case T-311/01: Les Éditions Albert René v Office for                   mission’s decisions partially rejecting the applicant’s com-
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     plaints seeking damages to compensate her for the non-
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                material damage caused by the delay in the preparation of the
                                                                          Staff Reports concerning her for the periods 1993/1995,
(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —                          1995/1997 and 1997/1999 and, secondly, for damages to
Earlier Community trade mark ASTERIX — Application for                    compensate her for that non-material damage — the Court of
a Community figurative mark containing the word ‘starix’                  First Instance (Single Judge: V. Tiili); I. Natsinas, Administrator,
— Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5)                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2003,
                 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                             in which it:
                          (2004/C 7/59)                                   1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
                                                                                EUR 2 500, in addition to the sum of EUR 1 500 already
                  (Language of the case: German)                                awarded by the Appointing Authority.
                                                                          2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action.
In Case T-311/01, Les Éditions Albert René, established in
Paris (France), represented by J. Pagenberg, avocat, v Office for         3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneid-
                                                                          (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
er), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being: Trucco sistemi di
telecomunicazione SpA, established in Milan (Italy), APPEAL
against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) of 2 October 2001 (Case R 1030/2000-1),
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges;
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 22 October 2003, in which it:                                                       of 23 October 2003
1.    Dismisses the action.                                               in Case T-25/02: Michel Sautelet v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                          (Officials — Staff report — Late preparation — Action for
(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.                                                                            compensation)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/61)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 23 October 2003
                                                                          In Case T-25/02: Michel Sautelet, an official of the Commission
in Case T-24/02: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi v Com-                          of the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg (Lux-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                         embourg), represented by G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti, lawyers,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
(Officials — Staff report — Late preparation — Action for                 mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and
                          compensation)                                   C. Berardis-Kayser) — application, first, for annulment of
                                                                          the Commission’s decisions partially rejecting the applicant’s
                                                                          complaints seeking damages to compensate him for the non-
                          (2004/C 7/60)                                   material damage caused by the delay in the preparation of the
                                                                          staff reports concerning him for the periods 1993/1995,
                   (Language of the case: French)                         1995/1997 and 1997/1999 and, secondly, for damages to
                                                                          compensate him for that non-material damage — the Court of
                                                                          First Instance (Single Judge: V. Tiili); I. Natsinas, Administrator,
In Case T-24/02: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi, an official of                 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 October 2002,
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                   in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/34                  EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.1.2004
1.    Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
      EUR 3 000, in addition to the sum of EUR 1 500 already                                           INSTANCE
      awarded by the Appointing Authority.
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action.                                                          of 9 July 2003
3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           in Case T-288/02 R: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.
                                                                                (Procedure for interim relief — Urgency — None)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/63)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        of 21 October 2003
in Case T-392/02: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV v Council of
                      the European Union (1)
                                                                           In Case T-288/02 R: Asian Institute of Technology (AIT),
                                                                           established in Pathumthani (Thailand), represented by H. Teis-
(Directive 70/524/EEC — Community authorisation, linked
                                                                           siers du Cros, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
to the person responsible for putting into circulation, of an
                                                                           bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
additive in animal feedingstuff — Transitional rules —
                                                                           (Agents: P.-J. Kuijper and B. Schöfer) — application for
Withdrawal of the authorisation — Action for annulment —
                                                                           suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission of
Admissibility — Conditions for withdrawal — Precautionary
                                                                           22 February 2002 to conclude a research contract with the
principle — Principles of equal treatment, legal certainty,
                                                                           Center for Energy-Environment Research and Development —
              sound administration and good faith)
                                                                           the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
                                                                           9 July 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                            (2004/C 7/62)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                                                                           2.    Costs are reserved.
In Case T-392/02: Solvay Pharmaceuticals BV, established in
Weesp (Netherlands), represented by C. Meijer, F. Herbert and
M. L. Struys, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Balta
and M. Ruggery Laderchi), supported by Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: A. Bordes), application for the
annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 of
23 September 2002 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concern-
ing additives in feedingstuffs as regards withdrawal of the                Action brought on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post
authorisation of an additive and amending Commission Regu-                 AG and Securicor Omega Express Limited against the
lation (EC) No 2430/1999 (OJ 2002 L 265, p. 1) — the                               Commission of the European Communities
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
N. J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;
H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 October 2003, in                                           (Case T-343/03)
which it:
1.    Dismisses the application.                                                                      (2004/C 7/64)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear his own costs and pay those
      incurred by the Council, including those incurred in the                                (Language of the case: German)
      interlocutory proceedings.
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs, including those
      incurred in the interlocutory proceedings.                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
(1) OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.                                                   European Communities on 8 October 2003 by Deutsche Post
                                                                           AG, Bonn (Germany) and Securicor Omega Express Limited,
                                                                           Sutton (United Kingdom), represented by T. Lübbig, lawyer.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 October 1999 in Case C-21/99 P: N v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Former officials — Staff report — Interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
5.2.2000                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 34/9
I. Sáenz-Cortabarrı́a Fernández and Morales Isasi, of the Viz-           (1) The appeal is dismissed.
caya Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of G. Harles, 8-10 Rue Mathias — against the order                (2) N is to pay the costs.
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Second Chamber) in Case T-136/95, Infrisa v Commission,
[1998] ECR II-3301, seeking to have that order set aside, the              (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: J. Guerra Fernández) — the
Court (First Chamber) composed of L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges,
Advocat General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: R. Grass has made an
order on 14 October 1999 in which it:
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                                   Action brought on 13 October 1999 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Portuguese
2. Orders Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conserera SA (Infrisa) to pay                                      Republic
     the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-392/99)
( 1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                                                                                (2000/C 34/17)
                                                                           An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                           on 13 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Lena Ström and António Caeiros,
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                           the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                         (Third Chamber)                                   Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                       of 19 October 1999                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
in Case C-21/99 P: N v Commission of the European                          (a) Declare that:
                          Communities (1)
                                                                               — by failing to adopt the provisions by which the
(Appeal — Former officials — Staff report — Interest in                            competent authority, before granting a permit to the
            bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)                                undertakings which regenerate waste oils or use waste
                                                                                oils as fuel, may satisfy itself that all appropriate health
                          (2000/C 34/16)                                           protection measures in the field of regeneration of
                                                                                waste oils have been taken, including use of the best
                                                                                technology available, where the cost is not excessive,
                    (Language of the case: French)                                 in the field of regeneration of waste oils and the use of
                                                                                waste oils as fuel;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         — by failing to ensure that the residues from the combus-
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  tion of waste oils are disposed of in accordance with
                                                                                Article 9 of Directive 78/319/EEC (1) and, from 27 June
In Case C-21/99 P: N, a former official of the Commission of                       1995, in accordance with Article 9 of Directive
the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium),                          75/442/EEC (2), which, as amended by Directive 91/
represented by G. Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an                      156/EEC (3) and pursuant to Directive 91/689/EEC (4),
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May,                       replaced Article 9 of Directive 78/319/EEC;
31 Grand-Rue — appeal against the order of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of                        — by failing to provide for regular inspections of the
30 November 1998 in Case T-97/94 N v Commission [1998]                             undertakings regenerating waste oils or which use
ECR-SC I-A-621 and II-1879, seeking to have that order set                         waste oils as fuel and for the examination of trends in
aside and applying for the grant of the form of order sought                       the state of technical development and/or of the
by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance, the other                   environment with a view to revising, where necessary,
party to the proceedings being the Commission of the                               permits granted to such undertakings;
European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Duvieusart-
Clotuche) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                            — by failing to convey to the Commission information
J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of Chamber, C. Gulmann                         concerning its technical expertise and the experience
(Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate                   gained and results obtained through the application of
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 19 October                      measures taken pursuant to Directive 75/439/EEC (5),
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                                   as amended by Directive 87/101/EEC(6),


title: Case T-498/11: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Tender procedure — Renovation of a website — Rejection of a tenderer’s tender — Award of contract to another tenderer — Action for annulment — Obligation to state reasons — Award criteria — Manifest errors of assessment — Claim for damages)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/31

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
      (Case T-498/11) (1)

      ((Public service contracts - Tender procedure - Renovation of a website - Rejection of a tenderer’s tender - Award of contract to another tenderer - Action for annulment - Obligation to state reasons - Award criteria - Manifest errors of assessment - Claim for damages))
      (2014/C 395/36)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, M. Dermitzakis and N. Theologou, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and F. Moro, Agents, assisted by P. Wytinck and T. Ruys, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application (i) for annulment of the decision of the Publications Office of the European Union rejecting the tender submitted by the applicant concerning a supply of services relating to the revamping of the website of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer, and (ii) for damages.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/60

         Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-62/04)
   (2004/C 94/153)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, established in České Budějovice (Czech Republic), represented by Fabienne Fajgenbaum, lawyer.
   Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the defendant's Second Board of Appeal of 3 December 2003;

               —

               reject the application for the registration of BUD for Classes 29 and 30 filed on 1 April 1996 on behalf of Anheuser-Busch;

               —

               order Anheuser-Busch to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘BUD’ – Application No 24679 in respect of goods in Classes 29 and 30

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Appellations of origin ‘BUD’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). The applicant, entitled in France to use the above-mentioned appellations of origin, submits that French law enables it to oppose the registration of the mark sought without having to demonstrate that the appellations in question possess a reputation in France and without having to examine whether the use of the mark at issue could have the consequence of misappropriating or weakening the reputation of those appellations.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-78/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 22 February 2011 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA) and Others

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 22 February 2011 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA) and Others
   (Case C-78/11)
   2011/C 152/18
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

      Defendants: Federación de Asociaciones Sindicales (FASGA), Federación de Trabajadores Independientes de Comercio (FETICO), Federación Estatal de Trabajadores de Comercio, Hostelería, Turismo y Juego de UGT, Federación del Comercio, Hostelería y Turismo de CC.OO

      Question referred

   Does Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time preclude an interpretation of national legislation which does not permit interruption of a period of leave so that the full period — or the remaining period — can be taken at a later time if a worker is temporarily incapacitated when he is on leave?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2001 in Case T-118/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
5.1.2002               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 3/27
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 19 September 2001                                                       of 19 September 2001
in Case T-118/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office                        in Case T-119/00: Procter & Gamble Company v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks                      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                    and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                                    and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
(Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing                     (Community trade mark — Shape of a product for washing
machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —                         machines or dishwashers — Three-dimensional mark —
Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation                Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                          (EC) No 40/94)                                                             (EC) No 40/94)
                           (2002/C 3/45)                                                              (2002/C 3/46)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-118/00: Procter & Gamble Company, established in                 In Case T-119/00: Procter & Gamble Company, established in
Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America), represented by                Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America), represented by
C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers, with an address               C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation                for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                    in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg)                (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, D. Schennen and C. Røhl Søberg)
— application brought against the decision of the First Board              — application brought against the decision of the First Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                  of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 March 2000 (Case                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 February 2000 (Case
R-516/1999-1), which was notified to the applicant on                      R-519/1999-1), which was notified to the applicant on
7 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),               3 March 2000 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,             composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has              Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:                        given a judgment on 19 September 2001, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                1.    Dismisses the action;
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                          2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.                                                  (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.


title: Case T-27/02: Action brought on 4 February 2002 by Kronofrance S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 118/26               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       18.5.2002
—     award the applicant the sum of 247 893,52 euros                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      (representing the sum of LUF 1 000 000) by way of
      compensation for the non-material damage suffered as a
      result of the lateness in drawing up his staff reports for        The applicant manufactures, inter alia, particle boards and
      the periods from 1 July 1993 to 30 June 1995 and from             oriented strand boards. It is contesting the Commission’s
      1 July 1995 to 30 June 1997;                                      decision, published in OJ C 333 of 28 November 2001, not to
                                                                        raise any objections to the grant to Glunz AG of Aid
—     rule on the costs, expenses and fees which the defendant          No N 517/2000. That aid concerns a non-repayable advance
      should be ordered to pay.                                         of EUR 46201868 and an investment allowance of
                                                                        EUR 23596120 for the construction of an integrated wood
                                                                        processing plant at Nettgau in the Land of Sachsen-Anhalt,
                                                                        Federal Republic of Germany.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant asserts as follows:
The applicant claims that he has suffered non-material damage           The Commission did not adhere strictly to the guidelines/
on account of a breach of the principle of sound administration         framework rules. Rather than involving application of the
and failure to act in good faith and to fulfil the duty of              multisectoral framework on regional aid, the matter arguably
cooperation as regards the drawing up of his consecutive staff          constitutes restructuring aid. The Commission wrongly con-
reports. In addition, according to the applicant, those faults          sidered, when applying the multisectoral Community frame-
have been repeated time and again and show that the                     work for the purposes of determining the competitive factor,
Commission does not bother to comply with the rules.                    that particle boards and oriented strand boards formed part of
                                                                        a single relevant market, instead of assessing the markets for
                                                                        those products separately. The annual growth rates were
                                                                        incorrectly assessed; the product market in question is posi-
                                                                        tively shrinking. Consequently, the competitive factor accord-
                                                                        ing to Point 3.10 of the multisectoral framework is not 1.00
                                                                        but 0.25. The particle board market is experiencing a ruinous
                                                                        price war. That price war is being intensified to an intolerable
                                                                        degree by the further subsidisation of new production plants.
Action brought on 4 February 2002 by Kronofrance S.A.
  against the Commission of the European Communities                    The Commission disregarded the discretion vested in it and
                                                                        incorrectly assumed, when approving the aid, that it had no
                                                                        latitude in the matter. That failure to exercise its discretion
                         (Case T-27/02)                                 constitutes an error of assessment.
                                                                        Even if it is assumed that, from a formal standpoint, the
                        (2002/C 118/42)                                 Commission correctly applied the multisectoral framework on
                                                                        regional aid, it must be doubted whether that framework is
                                                                        compatible with Article 87 EC.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        By failing to initiate the formal examination procedure,
                                                                        despite considerable difficulties in reviewing the aid and an
                                                                        investigation lasting nearly 12 months, the Commission has
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               infringed both Regulation No 659/1999 and Article 88(2) EC,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              thereby breaching an essential procedural requirement and
European Communities on 4 February 2002 by Kronofrance                  substantive law.
S.A., of Sully sur Loire (France), represented by R. Nierer,
lawyer.
                                                                        The fact that no formal examination procedure was initiated
                                                                        has unlawfully prevented the applicant and the Member States
                                                                        from taking part in such a procedure. This is contrary to the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             applicant’s rights of defence and restrictive of its right to a fair
                                                                        hearing.
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2001 not to
      raise any objections to the grant of aid by the Federal           The contested decision is not supported by an adequate
      Republic of Germany to Glunz AG;                                  statement of reasons.
—     order the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
      the costs of the applicant.


title: Case T-6/14: Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Banco de Santander and Others v Commission

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/36

         Action brought on 3 January 2014 — Banco de Santander and Others v Commission
   (Case T-6/14)
   2014/C 102/57
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Banco de Santander, SA (Santander, Spain); Santander Investment, SA (Santander, Spain); and Naviera Séneca, AIE (Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero, A. Lamadrid de Pablo and A. Biondi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


               10.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/8

         Action brought on 29 August 2011 by the Kingdom of Norway against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-11/11)
   2011/C 325/04
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 29 August 2011 by the Kingdom of Norway, represented by Ketil BØE MOEN, advocate, Office of the Attorney General, and Beate GABRIELSEN, adviser, Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as agents for the Kingdom of Norway.
   The applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               annul the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011; and

               2.

               order the EFTA Surveillance Authority to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority’s Decision No 205/11/COL of 29 June 2011 declared that the three measures provided for in the Supplementary Agreement, signed by Norwegian authorities and Hurtigruten in 2009, constituted State aid which is incompatible with the functioning of the EEA Agreement within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA in so far as they constitute a form of overcompensation for public service.

               —

               The applicant seeks the annulment of the contested Decision.

               —

               The applicant claims, inter alia, that the EFTA Surveillance Authority:

                           —

                           has committed a manifest error in law and/or of assessment in finding that the measures in question constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA,

                           —

                           has committed a manifest error in law and/or of assessment under Article 59(2) of the EEA,

                           —

                           breached the principle of legal certainty when adopting the contested Decision, and

                           —

                           has failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons under Article 16 of the SCA when adopting the contested Decision.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 16 November 1995 in Case C-152/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Ghent): criminal proceedings against Geert van Buynder (Freedom of establishment - Veterinary surgeons - Purely internal situation)

text:
No C 16/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20 . 1 . 96
G. Tesauro, Advocate-General, D. Louterman-Hubeau,                     Article 12 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social
on 9 November 1995 , the operative part is as follows:                 legislation relating to road transport does not authorize a
                                                                       driver to derogate from the provisions ofArticles 6, 7 or 8 of
                                                                       the Regulation for reasons known before the journey was
                                                                       commenced.
Article 6 of Commission Directive 88/301 /EEC of 16 May
1 988 on competition in the markets in telecommunications
terminal equipment must be interpreted as precluding the               (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
application of national rules which prohibit economic
agents from, and penalize them for, manufacturing,
importing, stocking for sale, marketing, distributing or
advertising terminal equipment without furnishing proof, in
the form of a type-approval or another document regarded
as equivalent, that such equipment conforms to certain
essential requirements relating in particular to the safety of
users and the proper functioning ofthe network where there
is no guarantee that a test laboratory responsible for
technically monitoring the conformity of the equipment
with the technical specifications is independent from                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
economic agents offering goods or services in the                                             ( Second Chamber)
telecommunications sector.
                                                                                of 16 November 1995
                                                                       in Case C-152/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
f 1 ) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .                                    the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Ghent): criminal
                                                                                proceedings against Geert van Buynder (*)
                                                                       (Freedom ofestablishment — Veterinary surgeons — Purely
                                                                                internal situation)
                                                                                96/C 16/08
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                          (First Chamber)                                       published in the European Court Reports)
                      of 9 November 1995
in Case C-235/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from              In Case C-152/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
the Crown Court, Bolton ): Criminal proceedings against                of the EC Treaty by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg ( Court
                     Alan Geoffrey Bird ( 1 )                          of First Instance ), Ghent, for a preliminary ruling in the
 (Social legislation relating to road transport — Exceptions           criminal proceedings pending before that court against
                      for reasons of safety)                           Geert van Buynder — on the interpretation of Article 52 of
                             ( 96/C 16/07 )                            the EC Treaty — the Court ( Second Chamber), composed
                                                                       of: G. Hirsch, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
                                                                       F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), Judges; M. B. Elmer,
                                                                       Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
                (Language of the case: English)                        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November 1995 ,
                                                                       the operative part of which is as follows :
In Case C-235/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 of the EC Treaty from the Crown Court, Bolton, United                 Article 52 of the EC Treaty does not apply to a purely
 Kingdom, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                      internal situation in a Member State such as that in which a
 proceedings pending before that court against Alan                     national of a Member State engages within its territory in a
 Geoffrey Bird — on the interpretation of Article 12 of                self-employed activity in respect of which he cannot rely on
 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3820/85 of 20 December                   any previous training acquired in another Member State.
 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation
 relating to road transport ( OJ No L 370, p . 1 ) — the Court
 ( First Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward, President             (M OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7. 1994 .
 of the Chamber, P. Jann ( Rapporteur) and L. Sevôn, Judges;
 P. Léger, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
 the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 November 1995 , the
 operative part of which is as follows :


title: Case C-252/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Intel Corporation Inc. v Cpm United Kingdom Limited (Directive 89/104/EEC — Trade marks — Article 4(4)(a) — Trade marks with a reputation — Protection against the use of a later identical or similar mark — Use which takes or would take unfair advantage of, or is or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Intel Corporation Inc. v Cpm United Kingdom Limited
   (Case C-252/07) (1)

   (Directive 89/104/EEC - Trade marks - Article 4(4)(a) - Trade marks with a reputation - Protection against the use of a later identical or similar mark - Use which takes or would take unfair advantage of, or is or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark)
   (2009/C 19/07)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Intel Corporation Inc.

      Defendant: Cpm United Kingdom Limited
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Articles 4(4)(a) and 5(2) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Earlier mark having a reputation — Criteria to be taken into account in order to establish whether there is a link within the meaning of Case C-408/01 Adidas-Salomon AG and Adidas-Benelux BV

   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(4)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks must be interpreted as meaning that whether there is a link, within the meaning of Case C-408/01 Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux, between the earlier mark with a reputation and the later mark must be assessed globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.

               2.

               The fact that, for the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, the later mark calls the earlier mark with a reputation to mind is tantamount to the existence of such a link, within the meaning of Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux, between the conflicting marks.

               3.

               The fact that:

                           —

                           the earlier mark has a huge reputation for certain specific types of goods or services, and

                           —

                           those goods or services and the goods or services for which the later mark is registered are dissimilar or dissimilar to a substantial degree, and

                           —

                           the earlier mark is unique in respect of any goods or services,

                     does not necessarily imply that there is a link, within the meaning of Adidas-Salomon and Adidas Benelux, between the conflicting marks.

               4.

               Article 4(4)(a) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that whether a use of the later mark takes or would take unfair advantage of, or is or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark must be assessed globally, taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case.

               5.

               The fact that:

                           —

                           the earlier mark has a huge reputation for certain specific types of goods or services, and

                           —

                           those goods or services and the goods or services for which the later mark is registered are dissimilar or dissimilar to a substantial degree, and

                           —

                           the earlier mark is unique in respect of any goods or services, and

                           —

                           for the average consumer, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect, the later mark calls the earlier mark to mind,

                     is not sufficient to establish that the use of the later mark takes or would take unfair advantage of, or is or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark, within the meaning of Article 4(4)(a) of Directive 89/104.

               6.

               Article 4(4)(a) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the use of the later mark may be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark with a reputation even if that mark is not unique;

                           —

                           a first use of the later mark may suffice to be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark;

                           —

                           proof that the use of the later mark is or would be detrimental to the distinctive character of the earlier mark requires evidence of a change in the economic behaviour of the average consumer of the goods or services for which the earlier mark was registered consequent on the use of the later mark, or a serious likelihood that such a change will occur in the future.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Nordcement Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-46/95)

text:
22. 4. 95            [ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 101 / 19
      provide translations of documentary evidence written           Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Nordcement
      in foreign languages, thereby frustrating the submission       Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European
      by the applicant of a comprehensive response (third                                      Communities
      head of claim);                                                                        (Case T-46/95 )
( d ) rendered it impossible, in overall terms, for the                                       ( 95/C 101/38 )
      applicant to submit a defence commensurate with the
      scope of the matters covered by the proceeding, by                            (Language of the case: German)
      prescribing unreasonably short periods for the delivery
      of its response and for inspection of the file ( fourth head
      of claim );                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
( e ) provided a statement of reasons for he decision which          Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
      was inadequate and contradictory, particularly as              1995 by Nordcement Aktiengesellschaft of Hanover,
      regards discrepancies between the operative part of the        represented by Karlheinz Moosecker and Martin
      decision and the reasons therefor, as well as an absence       Klusmann, Rechtsanwâlte, Diisseldorf, with an address for
      of reasons in support of individual objections ( fifth         service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt,
      head of claim), and — consequently —                           62 Avenue Guillaume .
( f) made findings of fault and determined the fine to be
      imposed in a manner which, from a formal standpoint            The applicant claims that the Court should :
      alone, fell far short of the requirements laid down by
      Article 190 of the EC Treaty regarding the giving              1 . annul in its entirety the Decision of the Commission of
      of reasons for individual decisions ( sixth head of                 30 November 1994 ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 —
      claim).                                                             Cement ), served on the applicant on 13 December 1994
                                                                          and 3 February 1995 , in so far as it concerns the
By reason of those procedural infringements, the                          applicant,
Commission breached the principles of equality of arms in
the proceeding, of entitlement to a fair hearing and of                   in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
equitable procedure and equality of treatment.                            applicant to a reasonable sum corresponding to the real
Consequently, the decision was reached in an unlawful                     significance of the influence on competition forming the
manner and should thus be annulled .                                      subject-matter of the proceeding, the period of time to
                                                                          which the objections regarding the ECEC relate and the
As regards the substance of the matter, the applicant                     involvement of the applicant in the matter;
complains that the Commission:
(a ) based its legal subsumptions on incorrect and unproven          2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
      suppositions, in that it investigated the actual
      circumstances in the cement markets in a fragmentary           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      manner and drew erroneous and arbitrary conclusions
      from the facts investigated ( seventh head of claim );         The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                     in Case T-45/95 Alsen-Breitenburg Zement- und Kalkwerke
( b ) with particular regard to the ECEC, failed to recognize,       GmbH v . Commission .
      from the standpoint of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty,
      the absence of elements constituting an infringement in
      relation to that organization and its modus operandi
      ( eighth head of claim);
(c) assumed the existence of links between the ECEC and
      the EPC, organizations which were the subject of               Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Terres Rouges
      complaints, whereas no such links in fact existed ( ninth      Consultant and others against the Commission of the
      head of claim);                                                                   European Communities
( d ) in assuming the existence of a single continuing                                       (Case T-47/95 )
      infringement, bracketed together, in a grossly unlawful                                 ( 95/C 101/39 )
      manner, different sets of facts, and conjectured
      participation in the alleged Cembureau agreement
      (tenth head of claim );
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(e ) without due authority, issued directions in Article 8           An action against the Commission of the European
      of the decision which were inadequately defined and            Communities was brought before the Court of First
      which were impermissible regarding the future                  Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
      exchange of information (eleventh head of claim).              1 995 by Terres Rouges Consultant, the head office of which
Consequently, the decision constitutes an infringement of            is in Paris, Cobana Import, the head office of which is at
                                                                     Rungis ( France), and SIPEV NV, the head office of which is
the Treaty and of higher-ranking rules of Community law,
and should for that reason be annulled .                             in Antwerp ( Belgium ), represented by Michel Aurillac, of
                                                                     the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                     the Chambers of Charles Duro, 6 Rue Heine.


title: Case C-305/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze del Mare (CoNISMa) v Regione Marche (Public service contracts — Directive 2004/18 — Concepts of contractor , supplier and service provider — Concept of economic operator — Universities and research institutes — Group ( consorzio ) of universities and public authorities — Where the primary object under the statutes is non-profit-making — Admission to a procedure for the award of a public contract)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 December 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze del Mare (CoNISMa) v Regione Marche
   (Case C-305/08) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18 - Concepts of ‘contractor’, ‘supplier’ and ‘service provider’ - Concept of ‘economic operator’ - Universities and research institutes - Group (‘consorzio’) of universities and public authorities - Where the primary object under the statutes is non-profit-making - Admission to a procedure for the award of a public contract)
   2010/C 51/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze del Mare (CoNISMa)

      Defendant: Regione Marche

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Exclusion of non-profit-making entities whose objects include research, such as universities, from a tendering procedure for the award of a public service contract for the acquisition of geophysical data

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The provisions of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts, in particular those in Article 1(2)(a) and (8), first and second subparagraphs, which refer to the concept of ‘economic operator’, must be interpreted as permitting entities which are primarily non-profit-making and do not have the organisational structure of an undertaking or a regular presence on the market — such as universities and research institutes and consortia made up of universities and public authorities — to take part in a public tendering procedure for the award of a service contract.

               2.

               Directive 2004/18 must be construed as precluding an interpretation of national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits entities, such as universities and research institutes, which are primarily non-profit-making from taking part in a procedure for the award of a public contract, even though such entities are entitled under national law to offer the services covered by the contract in question.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.09.2008.


title: Action brought on 10 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom (Case C-39/99)

text:
C 86/14                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                27.3.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                          under these Directives, and
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
those put forward in Case C-26/99 (2); the period laid
down in the directive expired on 31 May 1997.                        Ð order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
(1) OJ L 140, 13.6.1996, p. 30.
(2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
                                                                     be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                     Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                     Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
                                                                     down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1992
Action brought on 10 February 1999 by the Commission                 at the latest without the United Kingdom having enacted
of the European Communities against the United                       the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
                             Kingdom                                 referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
                         (Case C-39/99)
                         (1999/C 86/27)                              (1 ) OJ L 18, 24.1.1980, p. 26.
                                                                     (2 ) OJ L 117, 4.5.1983, p. 15.
                                                                     (3 ) OJ L 363, 13.12.1989, p. 27.
                                                                     (4 ) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 21.
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
10 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Mr Richard Wainwright,
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez
de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the                               Removal from the register of Case C-321/98 (1)
Commission, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                                (1999/C 86/28)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     By order of 12 January 1999 the President of the Court of
Ð declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with:          removal from the register of Case C-321/98: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v. French Republic.
     Ð Council Directive 80/51/EEC (1) of 20 December
         1979 on the limitation of noise emissions from              (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998.
         subsonic aircraft;
     Ð Council Directive 83/206/EEC (2) of 21 April 1983
         amending Directive 80/51/EEC on the limitation of
         noise emissions from subsonic aircraft;
     Ð Council Directive 89/629/EEC (3) of 4 December                         Removal from the register of Case C-4/98 (1)
         1989 on the limitation of noise emissions from                                       (1999/C 86/29)
         civil subsonic jet aeroplanes;
     Ð Council Directive 92/14/EEC (4) of 2 March 1992               By order of 14 January 1999 the President of the Court of
         on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
         covered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of                  removal from the register of Case C-4/98 (reference for a
         Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil           preliminary ruling from Sù- og Handelsretten): Calvin
         Aviation, second edition (1988)                             Klein Trademark Trust v. Cowboyland Aalborg A/S and
                                                                     Others.
     with respect to the territory of Gibraltar, or in any
     event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the          (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.


C 302/22              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.10.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-163/98 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-341/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/44)                                                      (2000/C 302/48)
By order of 19 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-163/98: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-341/99 (reference for a preliminary
Communities v Eyckeler & Malt AG.                                    ruling from Landesgerich Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki Kai-
                                                                     sha v Rashad Wali.
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-460/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-450/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/45)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/49)
By order of 25 May 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 13 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-460/99: Commission of the European            of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Communities v French Republic.                                       the register of Case C-450/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg): SEIKO Kabushiki
                                                                     Kaisha v Bajrami Sinavere.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-78/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-432/00 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/46)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/50)
By order of 9 June 2000, the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has              By order of 22 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-78/99:               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.            the register of Case C-432/99: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-183/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-452/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 302/47)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/51)
By order of 13 June 2000, the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 26 June 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-183/99 (Reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Hugo Boss v Trigavina         the register of Case C-452/99: Commission of the European
in Storitve D.O.O.                                                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                           (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.


title: Case C-375/00: Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 372/4               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.12.2000
The Commission cannot accept from Member States rectifi-                   3.    Is the requirement laid down in Article 1(b) of Directive
cations with retroactive value such as that made by the Italian                  93/96/EEC that the management of the body governed
Ministry of the Treasury on 27 June 1996, given that credits                     by public law must be subject to supervision by the State
of sums with retroactive value make no sense in a system of                      or a regional or local authority also fulfilled by a
non-interest bearing accounts such as the ‘own resources’                        mere review as provided for through the Kontrollamt
account in the name of the Commission, and to allow                              (Monitoring Office) of the City of Vienna?
accounting rectifications with retroactive effect would deprive
the obligation to pay interest for delay of any practical
effectiveness whatsoever.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 130, 31.5.2000, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 155, 7.6.1989, p. 1.
                                                                           Action brought on 11 October 2000 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-375/00)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vergabekon-
trollsenat des Landes Wien (Austria) by order of 14 Sep-                                            (2000/C 372/07)
tember 2000 in the case of Adolf Truley GmbH v
                    Bestattung Wien GmbH
                                                                           An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 October
                        (Case C-373/00)                                    2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
                                                                           and Roberto Amorosi, judge on secondment to the Legal
                        (2000/C 372/06)                                    Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 14 September 2000 by
the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien, which was received               The applicant claims that the Court should:
at the Court Registry on 11 October 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Adolf Truley GmbH v Bestattung Wien
GmbH on the following questions:                                           —     Declare that, by failing to draw up a systematic and
                                                                                complete plan of action at national level, including a
                                                                                timetable for the improvement of surface water, the
1.    Must the term ‘needs in the general interest’ in Article 1(b)              territorial plan for Lombardy still being missing, so that
      of Council Directive 93/36/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993                         the Commission has not been able to carry out a
      coordinating procedures for the award of public supply                     thorough examination of said national plans, the Italian
      contracts be interpreted as meaning that                                   Republic has failed to comply with Article 4(2) of Council
                                                                                Directive 75/440/EEC (1) of 16 June 1975 concerning
                                                                                the quality required of surface water intended for the
      (a)  the definition of needs in the general interest must                  abstraction of drinking water in the Member States.
           be derived from the national legal system of the
           Member State?
                                                                           —     Order the Italian Republic defendant to pay the costs.
      (b) the fact that a regional or local authority’s obligation
           is subsidiary is in itself sufficient for the existence of
           a need in the general interest to be assumed?                   Pleas in law and main arguments
2.    In interpreting the requirement ‘meeting needs ... not               The Commission claims that, although, so far as concerns
      having an industrial or commercial character’ laid down              certain types of water, there have been separate improvement
      in Directive 93/36/EEC, is (a) the existence of significant          plans at regional level, such plans do not cover all the water
      competition an imperative condition or (b) are the factual           referred to in Directive 75/440/EEC, so that the Commission
      or legal circumstances the determinant factors in that               takes the view that the Italian Republic has not drawn up the
      respect?                                                             systematic plan as required under Article 4(2) of the directive.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.12.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 372/5
The legislation adopted by the Italian authorities on 18 May            Pleas in law and main arguments
1989 merely regulates the activities of bodies and organisations
with the purpose of drawing up, adopting and putting into
operation plans for water catchment areas for improving                 The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
surface waters as well as drawing up, adopting and putting into         in Case C-335/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired
operation intervention programmes with the same objective.              on 3 February 1999, but the Federal Länder of Mecklenburg-
However, it does not directly adopt any specific plan. Accord-          Vorpommern, Lower Saxony, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saxony,
ingly, it is no more than a proposal for the implementation of          Sachsen-Anhalt and Schleswig-Holstein have not to date taken
the obligations under Article 4(2) of the directive rather than         the necessary measures under Article 11 of the directive
actual implementation thereof.                                          concerning the drawing-up of emergency plans.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 10 of 14.1.1997, p. 13.
(1) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 26.                                               (2) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000, p. 16.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Niedersächsisch-
                                                                        en Oberverwaltungsgericht by order of 28 August 2000
                                                                        in the case of Heinrich Bredemeier against Landwirtsch-
                                                                        aftskammer, Hanover, joined parties: Wilhelm Wieggrebe
                                                                                and Irmtraut Bredemeier
Action brought on 18 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                          lic of Germany                                                        (Case C-384/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/09)
                         (Case C-383/00)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of 28 August 2000 by the
                         (2000/C 372/08)                                Niedersächsischen Oberverwaltungsgericht (Higher Adminis-
                                                                        trative Court for Lower Saxony), which was received at the
                                                                        Court Registry on 20 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                        in the case of Heinrich Bredemeier against Landwirtschafts-
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   kammer, Hanover: joined parties Wilhelm Wieggrebe and
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            Irmtraut Bredemeier on the following question:
ties on 18 October 2000 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg         Is an agricultural holding received through ‘similar means’
at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,        within the meaning of Article 3a of Council Regulation (EEC)
Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                         No 857/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as
                                                                        amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1639/91 (2) of
                                                                        13 June 1991 (OJ 1991 L 150, p. 35), where, following expiry
                                                                        of the non-marketing undertaking entered into by the producer
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             under Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77, (3) the holding is leased
                                                                        by him to the husband of the designated heir before 29 June
                                                                        1989 on conditions more favourable than normal market
(1) declare that, by failing within the time-limit prescribed to        conditions?
      take all necessary measures in order to comply with
      Council Directive 96/82/EC (1) of 9 December 1996
      on the control of major-accident hazards involving                (1) OJ L 90, p. 13.
      dangerous substances, and in particular Article 11 thereof,       (2) OJ L 150, p. 35.
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its          (3) OJ L 131, p. 1.
      obligations under the EC Treaty;
(2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Case C-673/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea Constituțională a României (Romania) lodged on 30 December 2016 — Relu Adrian Coman, Robert Clabourn Hamilton, Asociația Accept v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări, Ministerul Afacerilor Interne, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea Constituțională a României (Romania) lodged on 30 December 2016 — Relu Adrian Coman, Robert Clabourn Hamilton, Asociația Accept v Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări, Ministerul Afacerilor Interne, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării
   (Case C-673/16)
   (2017/C 104/43)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea Constituțională a României

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Relu Adrian Coman, Robert Clabourn Hamilton, Asociația Accept

      Defendants: Inspectoratul General pentru Imigrări, Ministerul Afacerilor Interne, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the term ‘spouse’ in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38/[EC], (1) in conjunction with Articles 7, 9, 21 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, include the same-sex spouse, from a State which is not a Member State of the European Union, of a citizen of the European Union to whom that citizen is lawfully married under the law of a Member State other than the host Member State?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, do Articles 3(1) and 7(1) of Directive 2004/38/[EC], in conjunction with Articles 7, 9, 21 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, require the host Member State to confer the right of residence in its territory or for a period of longer than three months on the same-sex spouse of a citizen of the European Union?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, can the same-sex spouse, from a State which is not a Member State of the European Union, of a European Union citizen, to whom the citizen concerned is lawfully married under the law of a Member State other than the host Member State, be classified as ‘any other family member’ within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38/[EC] or ‘partner with whom the Union citizen has a durable relationship, duly attested’ within the meaning of Article 3(2)(b) of Directive 2004/38/[EC], with the corresponding obligation for the host Member State to facilitate entry and residence for him, even though the host State does not recognise marriages between members of the same sex or provide for an alternative form of legal recognition, such as registered partnerships?

               4.

               If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, do Articles 3(2) and 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/[EC], in conjunction with Articles 7, 9, 21 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, require the Member State to confer the right of residence in its territory or for a period of longer than three months on the same-sex spouse of a citizen of the European Union?

      (1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77)


title: Action brought on 5 March 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-60/96)

text:
No C 133/ 14            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     4 . 5 . 96
2 , if Question 1 is answered in the negative, is a benefit                3 , the standard cable television agreement of 29 May
      granted under the Vergoedingsregeling ( 1 ) to be regarded                1985 and/or agreements deriving therefrom are
      as a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7 ( 2 )              incompatible with Article 7 of the EC Treaty;
      of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ? If so, is the
      imposition of the requirement that the worker                        4 , the participation of BUMA in the cable radio
      concerned should have his residence in the Netherlands                   agreements, in the form adopted , are incompatible
      to be regarded as different treatment by reason of                       with Article 86 of the EC Treaty;
      nationality contrary to Article 7 of that Regulation ?
                                                                           5 , the role played by the Netherlands State in the
0 ) Administrative Décision No 403 of the Stichting                            establishment of the standard cable agreements
    Ontwikkelings- en Saneringsfonds voor de Landbouw                          and their practical implementation by means of
    ( Staatscourant 1988 , 114 ).                                              increases in invoices issued by public utility
                                                                               companies are incompatible with its obligations
                                                                               under Article 90;
                                                                           6 , Articles 2, 3 , 5 , 6 , 8 and 9 of BUMA's standard
                                                                               exploitation agreements are in breach of the
                                                                               Commission's decision of 2 June 1971 in GEMA I
                                                                               ( OJ No L 134 , 1971 , p . 15 ) and are incompatible
Appeal brought on 4 March 1996 by C. Koelman against                           with Article 86 of the EC Treaty, since they
the judgment delivered on 9 January 1996 by the Court of                       constitute an abuse of BUMA's dominant position
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                             in relation to copyright owners and are a restriction
T-575 /93 between C. Koelman and Commission of the                             of competition .
                     European Communities
                        ( Case C-59/96 P)
                                                                      B. annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                           ( 96/C 133/29 )                                 9 January 1996 in Case T-575/93 , and
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 9 January 1996                 1 , declare void on the ground of Articles 173 and 174
                                                                               the   Commission        decision not the   initiate    a
by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Case T-575/93 between C. Koelman and Commission of                          proceeding on the basis of Article 3 of Regulation
the European Communities, supported by BUMA, was                               No 17 after submission of a complaint by Koelman
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                            on 26 October 1990 regarding the two 'cable
Communities on 4 March 1996 by C. Koelman, represented                         agreements' of 29 May 1985 and the infringements
                                                                               referred to therein;
by R. V. H. Jonker, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Pels, 12 Rue Léon
Thyes .                                                                    2 , order the Commission to pay compensation for the
                                                                               damage suffered by Koelman;
The appellant claims that the Court should :                               3 , order the Commission to pay the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings .
A.    rule that :
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
      1 , authors should be guaranteed a free choice
          regarding the organization which they wish to               The appellant's grounds of appeal are that the Court of First
          appoint as intermediary in connection with their            Instance wrongly appraised his pleas based on Article 85 ( 3 )
          rights, and undertakings which act as intermediaries        of the EC Treaty and his plea that there had been a
          for rights should be guaranteed fair access to the          manifestly erroneous appraisal and breach of the obligation
          market and should be protected against abuse                to state the reasons upon which the decision was based.
          of dominant positions by musical copyright
          monopolies and similar organizations which, selling
          ' blanket  licences '   on  the  basis   of  dominant
          positions, in conjunction with indemnification
          clauses, infringe the Auteursrecht ( Law on
          copyright) in order thereby to dominate the market
          for intermediaries and exclude competition, which           Action brought on 5 March 1996 by the Commission of the
          results in an unnecessary restriction of the                   European Communities against the French Republic
          free-market economy;                                                                ( Case C-60/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/30 )
      2 , the two cable radio and television agreements of
          29 May 1985 and all the agreements deriving
          therefrom are incompatible with Article 85 ( 1 ) of         An action against the French Republic was brought before
          the EC Treaty and therefore void;                           the Court of Justice on 5 March 1 996 by the Commission
 ---pagebreak--- 4 . 5 . 96                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 133/ 15
of the European Communities, represented by Hélène                      Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Michard and Enrico Traversa, acting as Agents, with an                  Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E.
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos               Servais .
Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — annul the element concerning anchovy contained in the
( a ) declare that, by introducing and maintaining in force an                Annex to Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3074/95 of
       administrative provision extending to the leasing or                   22 December 1995 ( ! ) fixing, for certain fish stocks and
       letting of certain items of movable property the                       groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for
       exemption from VAT restricted by Community                             1996 and certain conditions under which they may be
       legislation exclusively to the leasing or letting of                   fished,
       immovable property, the French Republic has failed to
       fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Council Directive      — order the defendant institution to pay the costs .
       77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 ( the Sixth VAT Directive )
       on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
       relating to turnover taxes — common system of value              Pleas in law and main arguments
       added tax : uniform basis of assessment (');
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
( b ) order the French Republic to pay the costs .                      in Case C-179/95 ( 2 ).
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (>) OJ No L 330 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 1 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 10 .
The Commission considers that the exemption from VAT in
respect of the leasing or letting of certain items of movable
property, such as tents, caravans and mobile homes, goes
beyond the limits laid down by Article 13 ( B ) ( b ) of the Sixth
Directive, which applies only to the leasing or letting of
immovable property .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 13 December
In the Commission's view, the uncertain interpretation of
                                                                        1995 in the case of Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v. Werner
the concept of a supply of services in the form of the leasing
                                                                                Skripalle
or letting of certain items of movable property which stems
from a hybrid interpretation, in accordance with criteria laid                                    ( Case C-63 /96 )
down by national law, of the supply of accommodation in a                                           ( 96/C 133/32 )
hotel or similar establishment, constitutes a major problem
which directly calls in question the system of uniform
taxation within the Community established by the Sixth                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Directive in relation to the leasing or letting of movable              European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                        ( Federal Finance Court ) — Eleventh Chamber — of 13
property .
                                                                        December 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
The Commission further observes that the provisions on                  on 8 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
exemption must be strictly interpreted, since they constitute           Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v. Werner Skripalle on the
an exception to the basic principle of the Directive, which             following questions :
establishes a common system of taxation of economic
                                                                         1 . Does Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC cover an
activities within the Community .
                                                                              authorization by the Council to introduce special
                                                                              measures for derogation from Directive 77/388/EEC (^
( 1 ) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                              in order to prevent tax avoidance which, in the case of
                                                                              supplies for consideration made between associated
                                                                              persons, apply the cost to the taxable person within the
                                                                              meaning of Article 11 A ( 1 ) (c ) of Directive 77/388/EEC
                                                                              as the minimum basis of assessment also where the
                                                                              agreed consideration represents the market rate but is
Action brought on 6 March 1996 by the Kingdom of Spain                        less than the minimum basis of assessment and there is
           against the Council of the European Union                          therefore no tax avoidance ?
                           ( Case C-61/96 )
                                                                        2 . Can a Member State invoke special measures under
                             ( 96/C 133/31 )                                  Article 27 of Directive 77/388/EEC as taxation rules
                                                                               applying to a taxable person, if neither the Council's
An action against the Council of the European Union was                       decision authorizing the measures was published in the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                            Official Journal of the European Communities nor the
Communities on 6 March 1 996 by the Kingdom of Spain,                          authorization procedure under Article 27 ( 2 ) to ( 4 )
represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del                          of Directive 77/388/EEC made public — after its