title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 10 January 1996 in the case of Rotexchemie International Handels GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof (Case C-26/96)

text:
16 . 3 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 77/9
      under the legislation of one Member State may not rely            Is Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1531/88 (') of 31 May
      on the provisions of Article 10 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )       1988 valid ?
      No 1408/71 in order to challenge a withdrawal of
      entitlement on the sole ground that the person resides in         (') Imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
      the territory of another Member State ?                                 potassium permanganate originating in the People's Republic of
                                                                              China ( OJ No L 138 , 1988 , p. 1 ).
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1247/92 made within the powers granted by the
      Treaty of Rome, and in particular by Articles 5 1 and 235
      of that Treaty ?
(') OJ No L 149, 1971 , p . 2 .                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the
( 2 ) OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992 , p . 1 .                             Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ( Second Chamber —
                                                                        Tax matters ) of 4 October 1995 in the proceedings
                                                                        pending before that court between Fazenda Publica and
                                                                                Fricarnes SA
                                                                                ( Case C-2 8/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/20 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
orders of that court of 10 January 1996 in criminal
                                                                        European Communities by judgment of the Second
proceedings against Vittorio Ianilli and Francesco
                               Cannizzaro
                                                                        Chamber for tax matters of the Supremo Tribunal
                                                                        Administrativo ( Supreme Administrative Court ) of
                 ( Cases C-24/96 and C-25/96 )                          4 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
                             ( 96/C 77/ 18 )                            on 1 February 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                        proceedings pending before that court between Fazenda
                                                                        Publica ( tax authorities ) and Fricarnes SA on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        questions :
European Communities by orders of the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli
( Rome District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of                1 . Are the 'charges' described, which have                      the
10 January 1996 , which were received at the Court Registry                   characteristics described above, contrary                   to
on 29 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in ciriminal                    Article 95 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of the Treaty of Rome ?
proceedings against Vittorio Ianilli and Francesco
Cannizzaro . The questions referred by the Pretura                      2 . Are they to be regarded as charges having an effect
Circondariale di Roma — Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the
                                                                              equivalent to a customs duty on imports, prohibited by
Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling are identical with                   Articles 9 and 12 of that Treaty ?
those in Case C-58/95 ( 1 ).
                                                                        3 . Are they to be regarded as turnover taxes within the
(') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
                                                                               meaning of Article 33 of the Sixth Directive (^ without
                                                                               prejudice to Article 378 of the Act of Accession ( 2 ) or any
                                                                               other Community legislation ?
                                                                        (>) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 302 , 15 . 11 . 1985 , p . 135 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Hamburg by order of that court of 10 January 1996 in the
case of Rotexchemie International Handels GmbH & Co . v.
              Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Waltershof
                           ( Case C-26/96 )
                             ( 96/C 77/19 )                                     Removal from the register of Case C-263/94 ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 77/21 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht                      By order of 13 November 1995 the President of the Court of
Hamburg — Fourth Chamber of the Joint Chamber of the                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Finanzgericht Hamburg for the Länder of the Free and                    from the register of Case C-263/94 : Commission of the
Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Lower Saxony and                             European Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands .
Schleswig-Holstein — of 10 January 1996 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 30 January 1996 , for a
                                                                        H OJ No C 304 , 29 . 10 . 1994 .
preliminary ruling in the case of Rotexchemie International
Handels GmbH & Co . v. Hauptzollamt Ham
burg-Waltershof on the following question :


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-474/03 (1)

   (2004/C 228/77)
   By order of 17 May 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-474/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Greece.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 10.1.2004.


title: Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 1999 in Case T-231/97: New Europe Consulting Ltd and Michael P. Brown v Commission of the European Communities (PHARE programme - Action for damages - Conditions - Principle of sound administration - Assessment of damage)

text:
C 299/22                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.10.1999
   JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            of 19 July 1999                                                           of 9 July 1999
in Case T-188/97: Rothmans International BV v Com-                         in Case T-231/97: New Europe Consulting Ltd and Michael
           mission of the European Communities (1)                         P. Brown v Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom on public                     (PHARE programme — Action for damages — Conditions
access to Commission documents — Decision refusing access                  — Principle of sound administration — Assessment of
to documents — ‘Rule on authorship’ — ‘Comitology’                                                       damage)
                              committees)
                                                                                (1999/C 299/29)
                           (1999/C 299/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-231/97: New Europe Consulting Ltd, established in
In Case T-188/97: Rothmans International BV (formerly                      Dublin, and Michael P. Brown, residing in Ballinasloe, County
Rothmans Group Holdings BV), having its registered office in               Galway (Ireland), represented by Alberic De Roeck and Benja-
Amsterdam, represented by Scott Crosby, Solicitor, with an                 min De Roeck, of the Antwerp Bar, 2 Lange Lozanastraat,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor                Antwerp (Belgium) v Commission of the European Communi-
Elvinger, 31 Rue d’Eich, supported by Kingdom of Sweden                    ties (Agents: Marie-José Jonczy and Maurits Lugard) — appli-
(Agent: initially Erik Brattgård and then Anders Kruse), v                 cation for compensation for the damage allegedly caused to
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: initially                  the applicants by the Commission’s wrongful conduct towards
Ulrich Wölker and Carmel O’Reilly and subsequently Ulrich                  them in the context of the PHARE programme — the Court
Wölker and Xavier Lewis) — application for the annulment of                (Fourth Chamber), composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President,
a Commission decision refusing the applicant access to the                 V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for
minutes of the Customs Code Committee — the Court (First                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 1999, in which
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                it:
President, C.W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vila-
ras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 July
1999, in which it:                                                         1. Orders the defendant to pay damages in the amount of EUR
                                                                                100 000 to New Europe Consulting Ltd and damages in the
                                                                                amount of EUR 25 000 to Michael P. Brown;
1. Annuls the Commission decision of 30 April 1997 refusing the
     applicant access to the minutes of the Customs Committee;
                                                                           2. Orders the amounts of damages to bear default interest at the
                                                                                annual rate of 4.5 % from the date of this judgment until actual
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the applicant, in                  payment;
     addition to its own costs;
                                                                           3. Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those of
3. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.                          the applicants.
(1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.                                                 (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.


title: Case C-142/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 20 March 2017 — Manuela Maturi and Others v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 20 March 2017 — Manuela Maturi and Others v Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma
   (Case C-142/17)
   (2017/C 249/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Manuela Maturi, Laura Di Segni, Isabella Lo Balbo, Maria Badini, Loredana Barbanera

      Defendant: Fondazione Teatro dell’Opera di Roma

      Question referred

   Is the national legislation referred to in Article 3(7) of Decree Law No 64 of 30 April 2010, converted into Law No 100 of 29 June 2010, according to which ‘for workers in the performing arts belonging to the category of dancers, the retirement age is fixed for men and women at the forty-fifth year of chronological age, with the use, for workers to whom the contributory or mixed system applies in full, of the transformation coefficient referred to in Article 1(6) of the Law of 8 August 1995, No 335, relative to the higher age. For the two years following the date of entry into force of this provision, the workers referred to in this paragraph employed on contracts of indefinite duration, who have reached or passed the retirement age, are afforded the option, renewable annually, of remaining in service. This option must be exercised through a formal application to be presented to the ENPALS within two months of the date of entry into force of this provision, or at least three months before pension rights are fully vested, without prejudice to the maximum retirement age of forty-seven years for women and fifty-two for men’, contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of sex, as laid down in Directive 2006/54 (1) and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 21)?

      (1)  Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23).


title: Case C-361/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 8 July 2011 — Hewlett-Packard Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands), lodged on 8 July 2011 — Hewlett-Packard Europe BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat
   (Case C-361/11)
   2011/C 282/16
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Haarlem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hewlett-Packard Europe BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of its examination … concerning print and copying speeds, the Rechtbank requests the Court of Justice to provide it with further guidance on the answer to the question of the significance to be attached to a situation in which the print and copying speeds are determined by the same printing unit and the difference in speed between those functions is attributable solely to the fact that a document to be copied must first be scanned before printing can take place.

               2.

               In the light of its examination … concerning the number of paper trays and the presence of a sheet feeder, the Rechtbank requests the Court of Justice to clarify whether its guidance in the judgment in Joined Cases C-362/07 and C-363/07 Kip Europe and Others [2008] ECR I-9489 in that connection must be interpreted as meaning that the presence of more than one paper tray and a sheet feeder are objective characteristics which indicate that the device concerned is a copying device rather than a printing unit.

               3.

               In the light of its examination … concerning the appraisal of the question as to what is the essential characteristic of the devices here at issue, in the light of, inter alia, the criteria laid down by the Cour d’appel de Paris in its judgment of 20 May 2010 in this matter with regard to devices similar to those here at issue, the Rechtbank requests the Court of Justice to provide it with further guidance on the question whether the value and weight of the central printing unit (the print engine) must be attributed to the print function or to the copying function and whether the value and weight of the scanner must be fully or partly attributed to the copying function.

               4.

               In the light of the examination carried out by the Rechtbank, is the rate of customs duty of 6 % specified for CN code 8443 31 91 by Regulation No 1031/2008 (1) valid in so far as it applies to MFPs [multifunctional printers] which, according to the guidance given by the Court of Justice in its judgment in Joined Cases C-362/07 and C-363/07 Kip Europe and Others, ought to have been classified under CN code 8471 60 20 if they were imported before 1 January 2007?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2008 L 291, p. 1).


title: Case T-374/05: Action brought on  6 October 2005  — Schierhorst v Commission

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/21

         Action brought on 6 October 2005 — Schierhorst v Commission
   (Case T-374/05)
   (2006/C 10/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Rainer Johannes Schierhorst (Georgetown, Guyana) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Jaume, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority rejecting the applicant's complaint, taken together with the decision appointing the applicant adopted by the Appointing Authority on 5 January 2005, in that it fixes his grade by application of Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and his step pursuant to the current Article 32 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               indicate to the Appointing Authority the effects of annulling the contested decisions, in particular the regrading of the applicant at grade A*10, step 4, with retrospective effect from 1 February 2005, the date on which the decision of 11 October 2004 appointing the applicant took effect;

               —

               in the alternative, order the Commission to make good the loss suffered by the applicant because he was not graded at grade A*10, step 4, from 1 February 2005, the date on which the decision of 5 January 2005 appointing the applicant took effect;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who was successful in Open Competition COM/A/1/02 for administrators of grade A7/A6 in the agricultural sector, was appointed an official by the contested decision of 5 January 2005. By application of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, he was graded at the new grade A*6, lower than the former grades A7/A6 which correspond to grades A*8/A*10 under the new system.
   In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the pleas in law which are identical to those relied on by the applicant in Case T-207/05 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005, p. 36.


title: Case T-10/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 January 2015 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-52/11 De Nicola v EIB

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/48

      Appeal brought on 11 January 2015 by Carlo De Nicola against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 November 2014 in Case F-52/11 De Nicola v EIB
      (Case T-10/15 P)
      (2015/C 073/60)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: C. De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by L. Isola, lawyer)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank

         Form of order sought by the appellant

      The appellant claims that the Court should: reversing the judgment under appeal in part, set aside points 2 and 3 of the operative part, along with paragraphs 5, 7, 14, 16 to 21, 24 to 27, 29, 32, 35 to 37, 39 to 43, 46 to 55, 57 to 59, 62 to 66, 68, 69, 73, 74, 76, 77, 87 to 91, 93, 95 to 100, 103, 106, 107, 109 to 112, 117, 120, 124, 142, 144, 145, 148 to 153, 161 to 170, 175 to 182 and 184 to 193 of that judgment; refer the case to a different Chamber, sitting in a different formation, of the Civil Service Tribunal so that, following completion of the requested medical report, a fresh decision may be made regarding the paragraphs set aside; make any measure of enquiry, direct and/or otherwise, which may be necessary with regard to the EIB’s defence and the production of any other documents held to be useful for refuting the arguments raised therein; order the EIB to pay the costs.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appellant raises the following grounds in support of his appeal:

                  1.

                  The contested measures contain no statement of reasons.

                  2.

                  Regarding the annulment of the measures related to the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision and of the measures used by the Committee of Inquiry, the appellant claims that that decision is inadmissible, given that the application specifically concerned all the unnecessary measures used by the Committee of Inquiry.

                  3.

                  Regarding the request for a declaration of mobbing, the appellant contests the Civil Service Tribunal’s decision on the ground of specious reasoning, in so far as the declaration that a breach of contract occurred to his detriment is certainly not an injunction issued against the EIB; nor is it even a declaration of principle.

                  4.

                  Regarding the request for an order to cease mobbing, the appellant asserts that the alleged prohibition on injunctions cannot be absolute, but must necessarily be lifted in the event of conduct which interferes with human dignity and fundamental rights.

                  5.

                  Regarding the request for compensation for the harm resulting from mobbing, the appellant emphasises the fact that the Civil Service Tribunal revokes his submissions to the Committee of Inquiry and observes that the EIB is not required to do anything, because there is no ruling giving an order to that effect and, since the Committee’s decision is not mandatory, it is not binding; nor is it even a procedural requirement.

                  6.

                  Regarding the request for compensation for the harms considered per se, the appellant asserts that the Civil Service Tribunal errs in criticising him for not having specified any error of law, and contests the payment of and reasons for awarding EUR 3 000 by way of compensation.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 29 January 2004 in Case C-218/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/29/Euratom — Protection of the health of workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing radiation — Failure to transpose in whole territory)

text:
20.3.2004                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 71/5
course in the district of Wörschach in the Province of Styria                   with an address for service in Luxembourg, v United Kingdom
despite a negative assessment of the implications for the                       of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji):
habitat of the corncrake (crex crex) in the special protection                  Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
area, within the meaning of Article 4 of Council Directive 79/                  regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds                       with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic
(OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), situated in that district, the Republic of               safety standards for the protection of the health of workers
Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3)                 and the general public against the dangers arising from
and (4), in conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/                ionizing radiation (OJ 1996 L 159, p. 1) in its whole territory,
43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural                            or in any event by failing to communicate them to the
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), the                 Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and North-
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans,                         ern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                              directive, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-P. Puissochet and N. Colneric, Judges;                 C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), acting for the President of
P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    the Fourth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges;
judgment on 29 January 2004, in which it:                                       A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                                judgment on 29 January 2004, in which it:
1.     Declares that, by authorising the proposed extension of the golf
       course in the district of Wörschach in the Province of Styria            1.   Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
       despite a negative assessment of its implications for the habitat             the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
       of the corncrake (crex crex) in the ‘Wörschacher Moos’ special                comply with Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down
       protection area situated in that district and classified as provided          basic safety standards for the protection of the health of workers
       for in Article 4 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April                   and the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing
       1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Republic of Austria               radiation in its whole territory, the United Kingdom of Great
       has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) and (4), in           Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
       conjunction with Article 7, of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of                 under that directive;
       21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
       wild fauna and flora;                                                    2.   Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to pay the costs.
2.     Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                                (1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
(1 ) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
                                                                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Magistrates’
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        Court, Bitonto by order of that court of 21 November
                                                                                2003 in the case of Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd
                                                                                Adriatico Assicurazioni
                           (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (Case C-509/03)
                           of 29 January 2004
                                                                                (2004/C 71/08)
in Case C-218/02: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                 Ireland (1)
                                                                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                    European Communities by order of the Magistrates’ Court,
96/29/Euratom — Protection of the health of workers and                         Bitonto of 21 November 2003, received at the Court Registry
the general public against the dangers arising from ionizing                    on 4 December 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      radiation — Failure to transpose in whole territory)                      Vincenzo Manfredi against Lloyd Adriatico Assicurazioni. The
                                                                                Magistrates’ Court, Bitonto asks the Court to give a ruling on
                                                                                the following questions:
                              (2004/C 71/07)
                                                                                1.   Do the facts as found in Judgment No 2199 of the
                     (Language of the case: English)                                 Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 23 April 2002 and
                                                                                in Judgment No 6139 of the Tribunale Amministrativo
                                                                                Regionale (Regional Administrative Court), Lazio (Rome)
                                                                                of 5 July 2001, which are deemed to be set out here in
In Case C-218/02, Commission of the European Communities                             full, constitute infringements of Community law, in
(Agents: initially T.F. Cusack, and, subsequently, X. Lewis),                        particular of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Civilret, Hillerød, by decision of 4 July 1997 in the case of Dansk Metalarbejderforbund, acting on behalf of John Lauge and Others, v. Lønmodtagernes Garantifond (Case C-250/97)

text:
16 . 8 . 97               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 252/23
1 . those tanks have been permanently fixed by one of the                undertaking's activities, and the Bankruptcy and Probate
      manufacturer's dealers or by a coachbuilder, with a                Court subsequently, and without any deferment other than
      permanent fitting enabling fuel to be used directly                that resulting from the time which that court requires to
      both for the purposes of propulsion and for the                    examine the matter, issues a winding-up decree pursuant
      operation of refrigeration systems; and                            to the winding-up petition and takes the date of that
                                                                         winding-up petition as the operative date ?
2 . the aim of that fitting is to provide the haulage unit —             (') Council Directive 75/129/EEC of 17 February 1975 on the
      driving unit and container — with a sufficient fuel                      approximation of tha laws of the Member States relating to
      range to :                                                               collective redundancies ( OJ No L 48 , 22 . 2 . 1975 , p. 29 ).
                                                                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 245 , 26 . 8 . 1992, p. 3 .
      ( a ) avoid difficulties in obtaining fuel in countries
             where availability is uncertain and where the poor
             quality of refining makes such fuel dangerous for
             vehicles,
       ( b) avoid the need to obtain fuel at sometimes                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by decision of the
             prohibitive prices in countries where it is too             Conseil d'Etat, France of 28 March 1997 in the case of
             expensive,                                                  Societe Baxter, Societe B. Braun Medical SA, Societe
                                                                         Fresenius France and Societe Anonyme des Laboratoires
                                                                                Bristol-Myers Squibb against French State
       ( c ) avoid the administrative difficulties involved in the
             need to recover value added tax in the countries                                         Case C-254/97 )
             where it has been charged, and                                                            97/C 252/48
       ( d ) use as few fuel supply points as possible in order
             to be able to negotiate the best prices with fuel           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
             companies ?                                                 European Communities by a decision of the Conseil d'Etat
                                                                         ( Council of State ), France, of 28 March 1997, received at
                                                                         the Court Registry on 14 July 1997, for a preliminary
(') OJ No L 105 , 23 . 4 . 1983 , p . 1 .                                ruling in the case of Societe Baxter, Societe B. Braun
( 2 ) OJ No L 123 , 17 . 5 . 1988 , p . 2 .                              Medical        SA,    Societe    Fresenius   France      and      Societe
                                                                         Anonyme des Laboratoires Bristol-Myers Squibb against
                                                                         French State on the following questions:
                                                                          1 . Do Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957
                                                                                establishing the European Community preclude
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Civilret,                             domestic legislation, enacted in 1996, which imposes a
Hillered, by decision of 4 July 1997 in the case of Dansk                       special tax for that year, the rate of which is to be
Metalarbejderforbund, acting on behalf of John Lauge and                        fixed between 1,5% and 2% , on the net turnover,
               Others, v. Lonmodtagernes Garantifond                            achieved in the State of taxation between 1 January
                            ( Case C-250/97)                                    1995 and 31 December 1995 by undertakings trading
                                                                                in proprietary medicinal products, in reimburseable
                              ( 97/C 252/47 )                                   proprietary medicinal products and medicinal products
                                                                                approved for use by public bodies and which allows
                                                                                costs accounted for during that same period in respect
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          of expenditure only on research carried out in the
                                                                                State of taxation to be deducted from the amount
European Communities by decision of 4 July 1997 from                            taxable ?
the Civilret ( Civil Court), Hillerod, which was received at
the Court Registry on 9 July 1997, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Dansk Metalarbejderforbund ( Danish                 2 . Does Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the
Metalworkers' Federation), acting on behalf of John                             European Community preclude such legislation ?
Lauge and Others, v. Lonmodtagernes Garantifond
 ( Employees ' Guarantee Fund ) on the following question:
                                                                          3 . In the event that either of the previous questions is
                                                                                answered in the negative, is the deductibility from the
Does the phrase 'collective redundancies arising from                           taxable amount of expenditure on research carried out
termination of the establishment's activities as a result of a                  in the State of taxation to be considered aid within the
 judicial decision' ( see Article 3 ( 1 ), second subparagraph,                 meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty establishing the
 and Article 4 ( 4 ) of Directive 75/129/EEC ('), as amended                    European Community ?
 by Directive 92/56/EEC (2 )) cover the case in which the
 collective redundancies occur on the same day as the
 employer filed a winding-up petition and terminated the


title: Notice of open competitions

text:
C 165/22        EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 8.6.2001
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                          NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITIONS
                                                       (2001/C 165/11)
         The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of the European
         Communities C 165 A of 8 June 2001 the following open competitions:
         Finnish edition
         CJ/LA/11 (Conference interpreters of Finnish mother tongue)
         Swedish edition
         CJ/LA/12 (Conference interpreters of Swedish mother tongue)
         To obtain a copy of the Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
         the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
         Closing date for application: 8 July 2001.


title: Case C-235/11 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Case T-589/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/17

         Appeal brought on 17 May 2011 by Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 3 March 2011 in Case T-589/08: Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case C-235/11 P)
   2011/C 211/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the decision of the General Court,

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission (DG ENVI) to reject the bids submitted by the applicant for each of the three lots relating to open Invitation to Tender DG ENV.C2/FRA/2008/0017 ‘Framework contract for Emission Trading Scheme — CITL/CR’ (2008/S72-096229) and to award those contracts to another tenderer,

               —

               Refer the case to the General Court in order that the latter examines the remaining issues in both Lots, including the request for Damages, not examined yet by the GC,

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal and other costs including those incurred in connection with the initial procedure, even if the current Appeal is rejected as well as those of the current Appeal, in case it is accepted.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               —

               Manifest error of assessment and insufficient reasoning.

               —

               Misinterpretation by the General Court of art. 100(2) of the Financial Regulation (1) and of art. 149 of the implementing rules (2) in relation to its appreciation of the obligation to state reasons of the contracting authority.

               —

               The General Court erred in law by not accepting the appellant’s arguments concerning the infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

      (1)  OJ L 248, p. 1

      (2)  OJ L 357, p. 1


title: Case T-425/10: Action brought on 21 September 2010 — Häfele v OHIM (Mixfront)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/37

         Action brought on 21 September 2010 — Häfele v OHIM (Mixfront)
   (Case T-425/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/67
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by M. Eck and J. Dönch, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 June 2010 in Case R 338/2010-1;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Mixfront’ for goods in Classes 6 and 20.

      Decision of the Examiner: Application refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) as the Community trade mark concerned is distinctive, is not descriptive and is not a name that has become customary.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-542/15: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Angela Manzo (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Identical questions referred — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gambling — Restrictions — Overriding grounds of general interest — Proportionality — Public procurement — Conditions for participating in a call for tenders and assessment of economic and financial standing — Exclusion of the tenderer for failure to present certificates of economic and financial standing issued by two different banks — Directive 2004/18/EC — Article 47 — Applicability)

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/12

      Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Angela Manzo

      (Case C-542/15) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Identical questions referred - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gambling - Restrictions - Overriding grounds of general interest - Proportionality - Public procurement - Conditions for participating in a call for tenders and assessment of economic and financial standing - Exclusion of the tenderer for failure to present certificates of economic and financial standing issued by two different banks - Directive 2004/18/EC - Article 47 - Applicability))
      (2016/C 454/23)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale di Santa Maria Capua Vetere

         Criminal proceedings against

      Angela Manzo

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on operators wishing to respond to a call for tenders for the grant of concessions in the field of betting and gambling the obligation to provide evidence of their economic and financial standing by means of statements issued by at least two banks, without allowing that standing to be proved also by other means, where such a provision is capable of satisfying the conditions of proportionality laid down by the case-law of the Court, this being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

                  2.

                  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 Article 47 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation governing the grant of concessions in the field of betting and gambling, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not come within its scope.

         (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


title: Case C-344/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), by order of that court dated 14 July 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application of International Air Transport Association against Department for Transport and in the case of The Queen on the application of European Low Fares Airline Association and Hapag-Lloyd Express GmbH against Department for Transport

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), by order of that court dated 14 July 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application of International Air Transport Association against Department for Transport and in the case of The Queen on the application of European Low Fares Airline Association and Hapag-Lloyd Express GmbH against Department for Transport
   (Case C-344/04)
   (2004/C 251/15)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), dated 14 July 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 12 August 2004 for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of International Air Transport Association against Department for Transport and in the case of The Queen on the application of European Low Fares Airline Association and Hapag-Lloyd Express GmbH against Department for Transport on the following questions:

               1.

               Whether Article 6 of Regulation 261/2004 (1) is invalid on grounds that it is inconsistent with the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air known as the Montreal Convention 1999, and in particular Articles 19, 22 and 29 of the Montreal Convention 1999, and whether this (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?

               2.

               Whether the amendment of Article 5 of the Regulation during consideration of the draft text by the Conciliation Committee was done in a manner that is inconsistent with the procedural requirements provided for in Article 251 EC and, if so, whether Article 5 of the Regulation is invalid and, if so, whether this (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?

               3.

               Whether Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation 261/2004 (or part thereof) are invalid on grounds that they are inconsistent with the principle of legal certainty, and if so whether this invalidity (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?

               4.

               Whether Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation 261/2004 (or part thereof) are invalid on grounds that they are not supported by any or any adequate reasoning, and if so whether this invalidity (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?

               5.

               Whether Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation 261/2004 (or part thereof) are invalid on grounds that they are inconsistent with the principle of proportionality required of any Community measure, and if so whether this invalidity (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?

               6.

               Whether Articles 5 and 6 of Regulation 261/2004 (or part thereof) are invalid on grounds that they discriminate, in particular, against the members of the second Claimant organisation in a manner that is arbitrary or not objectively justified, and if so whether this invalidity (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?

               7.

               Is Article 7 of the Regulation (or part thereof) void or invalid on grounds that the imposition of a fixed liability in the event of flight cancellation for reasons that are not covered by the extraordinary circumstances defence is discriminatory, fails to meet the standards of proportionality required of any Community measure, or is not based on any adequate reasoning, and if so whether this invalidity (in conjunction with any other relevant factors) affects the validity of the Regulation as a whole?

               8.

               In circumstances where a national court has granted permission to bring a claim in that national court, which raises questions as to the validity of provisions of a Community instrument and which it considers is arguable and not unfounded, are there any principles of Community law in connection with any test or threshold which the national court should apply when deciding under Article 234(2) EC whether to refer those questions of validity to the ECJ?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Common Statement (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1).


title: Case C-52/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tingsrätt Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2009 — Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tingsrätt Stockholm (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2009 — Konkurrensverket v TeliaSonera Sverige AB
   (Case C-52/09)
   2009/C 90/19
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Tingsrätt Stockholm

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Konkurrensverket

      Intervener: Tele2 Sverige Aktiebolag

      Defendant: TeliaSonera Sverige AB

      Questions referred

               1.

               Under what conditions does an infringement of Article 82 EC arise on the basis of a difference between the price charged by a vertically integrated dominant undertaking for the sale of input ADSL products to competitors on the wholesale market and the price which the same undertaking charges on the end-user market?

               2.

               Is it only the prices of the dominant undertaking to end-users which are relevant or should the prices of competitors on the end-user market also be taken into account in the consideration of question 1?

               3.

               Is the answer to question 1 affected by the fact that the dominant undertaking does not have any regulatory obligation to supply on the wholesale market but has, rather, chosen to do so on its own initiative?

               4.

               Is an anti-competitive effect required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse and, if so, how is that effect be to be determined?

               5.

               Is the answer to question 1 affected by the degree of market strength enjoyed by the dominant undertaking?

               6.

               Is the dominant position on both the wholesale market and the end-user market of the undertaking engaging in the practice required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse?

               7.

               For a practice such as that described in question 1 to constitute abuse, must the good or service supplied by the dominant undertaking on the wholesale market be indispensable to competitors?

               8.

               Is the answer to question 1 affected by the question whether the supply is to a new customer?

               9.

               Is an expectation that the dominant undertaking will be able to recoup the losses it has incurred required in order for a practice of the kind described in question 1 to constitute abuse?

               10.

               Is the answer to question 1 affected by the question whether a change of technology is involved on a market with a high investment requirement, for example with regard to reasonable establishment costs and the possible need to sell at a loss during an establishment phase?


title: Case T-173/10: Order of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Apotheke DocMorris v OHIM (Representation of a green cross)

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/48

         Order of the General Court of 14 July 2011 — Apotheke DocMorris v OHIM (Representation of a green cross)
   (Case T-173/10) (1)

   2011/C 282/89
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case F-79/08: Action brought on 3 October 2008 — Ackerman and Others v EIB

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/66

         Action brought on 3 October 2008 — Ackerman and Others v EIB
   (Case F-79/08)
   (2008/C 301/129)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Lucie Ackerman and Others (Strasbourg, France) and Others (represented by: L. Lévi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the applicants' pension slips for the month of February 2008, inasmuch as those slips apply the annual pension adjustment for 2007 retroactively only from 1 January 2008 and not from 1 July 2007 and, consequently, an order that the EIB pay the pension amount corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2007, the pension amount corresponding to the consequences of applying the annual adjustment for 2007 to the pension amounts which will be paid from January 2009 and default interest on the pension amounts payable, until full payment.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the applicants' pension slips for the month of February 2008, inasmuch as they apply the annual pension adjustment for 2007 retroactively only from 1 January 2008 and not from 1 July 2007 and, to the extent that it is necessary, annul the note which the Defendant sent to the applicants, dated 13 February 2008;

               —

               Order the Defendant to pay (i) the pension amount corresponding to the application of the annual adjustment for 2007, namely an increase of 2,2 % for the period from 1 July 2007 to 31 December 2007; (ii) the pension amount corresponding to the consequences of applying the annual adjustment for 2007 to the pension amounts which will be paid from January 2009; and (iii) default interest on the pension amounts payable, until full payment, calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations, applicable during the relevant period, plus three percentage points;

               —

               Order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.


title: Case T-347/11: Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/43

         Action brought on 7 July 2011 — Gollnisch v Parliament
   (Case T-347/11)
   2011/C 252/93
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: G. Dubois, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of European Parliament of 10 May 2011 to waive the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to adopt Report No A7-0154/2011;

               —

               award Mr GOLLNISCH the sum of EUR 8 000 in compensation for non-material damage;

               —

               award Mr GOLLNISCH the sum of EUR 4 000 by way of costs incurred for legal advice and the preparation of this action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks, first, the annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 10 May 2011 to adopt the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A7-0154/2011) and to reject the request for the defence of immunity and privileges of Bruno Gollnisch (2010/2097(IMM)) and, second, compensation for the non-material damage that it allegedly suffered in consequence of the adoption of the contested decision.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Union of 8 April 1965.

               2.

               Second plea, concerning the necessary application in the present case of Article 9 of the Protocol.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging failure to follow the precedents set by previous decisions of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament.

               4.

               Fourth plea, alleging failure to respect the legal certainty of European Union law and breach of legitimate expectations.

               5.

               Fifth plea, alleging breach of the independence of a Member.

               6.

               Sixth plea, alleging infringement of the provisions of the rules of the European Parliament relating to proceedings which might lead to the disqualification of a Member.

               7.

               Seventh plea, alleging breach of the rule that the parties should be heard and of the applicant’s rights of defence.


title: Case C-120/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/31/EC — Landfilling of waste — Concept of underground storage , of landfill gas and eluate — Obligation to determine the trigger levels from which it can be considered that the location of the landfill has a significant adverse effect on groundwater quality — Failure to transpose within the prescribed time limit with regard to the Walloon Region)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-120/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/31/EC - Landfilling of waste - Concept of ‘underground storage’, of ‘landfill gas’ and ‘eluate’ - Obligation to determine the trigger levels from which it can be considered that the location of the landfill has a significant adverse effect on groundwater quality - Failure to transpose within the prescribed time limit with regard to the Walloon Region)
   2010/C 51/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by T. Materne, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose fully into Walloon law Article 2(f), (j) and (k) of, and point 4C of Annex III to, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1) — Concept of ‘underground storage’, of ‘landfill gas’ and ‘eluate’- Obligation to determine the trigger levels from which it can be considered that the location of the landfill has a significant adverse effect on groundwater quality

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By failing to ensure the transposition with regard to the Walloon Region of Article 2(f), (j) and (k) of, and point 4C of Annex III to, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               The Kingdom of Belgium shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141 of 20.06.2009


title: Case T-445/12: Action brought on 8 October 2012 — Koscher + Würtz v OHIM — Kirchner & Wilhelm (KW SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/26

         Action brought on 8 October 2012 — Koscher + Würtz v OHIM — Kirchner & Wilhelm (KW SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS)
   (Case T-445/12)
   2012/C 379/45
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Koscher + Würtz GmbH (Spaichingen, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co (Asperg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 August 2012 in Case R 1675/2011-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Koscher + Würtz GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: International registration with protection in respect of the European Union of a figurative mark containing the word element ‘KW SURGICAL ELEMENTS’ for goods in Class 10 — International registration with protection in respect of the European Union No W 968 722

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘Ka We’ for goods in Class 10

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and protection denied in respect of the trade mark registration

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-184/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 14 April 2014  — A v B

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 14 April 2014 — A v B
   (Case C-184/14)
   2014/C 194/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di Cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: A

      Cross-appellant: B

      Question referred

   May the decision on a request for child maintenance raised in the context of proceedings concerning the legal separation of spouses, being ancillary to those proceedings, be taken both by the court before which those separation proceedings are pending and by the court before which proceedings concerning parental responsibility are pending, on the basis of the prevention criterion, or must that decision of necessity be taken only by the latter court, as the two distinct criteria set out in points (c) and (d) of [Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations] (1) are alternatives (in the sense that they are mutually exclusive)?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1.


title: Case T-149/08: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Abbott Laboratories v OHIM — aRigen (Sorvir) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Sorvir — Earlier Community word mark NORVIR — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/26

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Abbott Laboratories v OHIM — aRigen (Sorvir)
   (Case T-149/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Sorvir - Earlier Community word mark NORVIR - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 301/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Abbott Laboratories (Abbott Park, Illinois, United States) (represented by: S. Schäffler, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: aRigen, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 February 2008 (Case R 809/2007-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Abbott Laboratories and aRigen, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

   The General Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 February 2008 (Case R 809/2007-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Abbott Laboratories.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Case C-494/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trapani (Italia) lodged on 15 September 2016 — Giuseppa Santoro v Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/18

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trapani (Italia) lodged on 15 September 2016 — Giuseppa Santoro v Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
      (Case C-494/16)
      (2016/C 454/32)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale civile di Trapani

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Giuseppa Santoro

         Defendants: Comune di Valderice, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is the granting of compensation in the amount of between 2,5 and 12 monthly payments of the last overall salary payment (Article 32(5) of Law No 183/2010) to a public employee, who is a victim of the unlawful successive renewal of fixed-term contracts, who may obtain full compensation only by proving the loss of other work opportunities or by proving that, if he had participated in an open competition, he would have been successful, an equivalent and effective measure within the meaning of the judgments of the Court of Justice in Mascolo [and Others (C-22/13, C-61/13 to C-63/13 and C-418/13)] and Marrosu [and Sardino] (C-53/04)?

                  2.

                  Must the principle of equivalence referred to by the Court of Justice (inter alia) in those judgments, be interpreted as meaning that, when the Member State decides not to apply the conversion of the employment relationship (as awarded in the private sector) to the public sector, it must nevertheless provide the worker with the same benefit, if necessary through compensation which must relate to the value of the employment contract of indefinite duration?


title: Case T-483/10: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Pukka Luggage v OHIM — Azpiroz Arruti (PUKKA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PUKKA — Opposition by the proprietor of Community and national figurative marks featuring the word element pukas — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial refusal to register)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Pukka Luggage v OHIM — Azpiroz Arruti (PUKKA)
   (Case T-483/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PUKKA - Opposition by the proprietor of Community and national figurative marks featuring the word element pukas - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial refusal to register)
   2012/C 13/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Pukka Luggage Company Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Jesús Miguel Azpiroz Arruti (San Sebastián, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 July 2010 (Case R 1175/2008-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Jesús Miguel Azpiroz Arruti and The Pukka Luggage Company Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders The Pukka Luggage Company Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-228/05: Action brought on 13 June 2005 by Javier Maria Vega Bordell against the European Parliament

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/24

         Action brought on 13 June 2005 by Javier Maria Vega Bordell against the European Parliament
   (Case T-228/05)
   (2005/C 229/53)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 2005 by Javier Maria Vega Bordell, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision appointing the applicant as an official of the European Communities insofar as it fixes his grade on recruitment by application of Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical to those raised in Case T-130/05, Albert-Bousquet and Others v Commission
       (1), and certain pleas in law and main arguments raised are similar to those in Case T-58/05, Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission
       (2).

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005, p. 31.

      (2)  OJ C 93, 16.4.2005, p. 38.


title: Case C-292/11 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 29 March 2011 by the General Court (Third Chamber) in Case T-33/09 Portuguese Republic v European Commission

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/19

         Appeal brought on 9 June 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 29 March 2011 by the General Court (Third Chamber) in Case T-33/09 Portuguese Republic v European Commission
   (Case C-292/11 P)
   2011/C 252/34
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by P. Hetsch, P. Costa de Oliveira and M. Heller)

      Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 March 2011 in Case T-33/09 Portuguese Republic v Commission;

               —

               rule on the matters that are the subject of this appeal and were the subject of the action before the General Court, and dismiss the Portuguese Republic’s claim for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 25 November 2008 demanding payment of the penalty payment;

               —

               order the Portuguese Republic to bear, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the Commission both at first instance and in this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court erred in law by: (i) misappraising both the powers of the Commission with regard to compliance with judgments of the Court of Justice made pursuant to Article 260(2) TFEU and its own jurisdiction to review the Commission’s actions; (ii) by ruling in the contested judgment, on the basis of an incomplete reading of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 2004, that there had been failure to fulfil obligations, thereby infringing Article 260(2) TFEU. Furthermore, on any view the General Court’s judgment is marred by an error of law, for the General Court was in breach of its duty to state reasons, in that it decided on the basis of insufficient, contradictory reasoning that the Commission had overstepped the bounds of the infringement as found by the Court of Justice.


title: Case T-516/12: Action brought on 27 November 2012 — Ted-Invest v OHIM — Scandia Down (sensi scandia)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/20

         Action brought on 27 November 2012 — Ted-Invest v OHIM — Scandia Down (sensi scandia)
   (Case T-516/12)
   2013/C 32/31
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ted — Invest EOOD (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Ivanova, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Scandia Down LLC (Weehawken, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2012 in case R 2247/2011-1, for declaring the trademark as invalid for the goods in classes 20 and 24;

               —

               Alternatively if the Court does not uphold the whole appeal, to uphold the appeal and to annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal in connection with the goods in class 20.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘sensi scandia’, for goods in classes 16, 20 and 24 — Community trade mark registration No 8596975

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The request for a declaration of invalidity was based on the grounds laid down in Article 53(1) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, and was based on the Community trade mark registration No 8173312 of the word mark ‘SCANDIA HOME’, for goods and services in classes 20, 24, 25 and 35

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested CTM invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 53(1) in conjunction with Articles 8(2) and 8(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-114/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Pau (France) lodged on 6 March 2015 — Association des Utilisateurs et Distributeurs de l’Agro Chimie Européenne (Audace), Phyteron 2000 SAS, Association des éleveurs solidaires, Cruzalebes EARL, Des deux rivières EARL, Mounacq EARL v GAEC Reconnu La Vinardière, Ministère public

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Pau (France) lodged on 6 March 2015 — Association des Utilisateurs et Distributeurs de l’Agro Chimie Européenne (Audace), Phyteron 2000 SAS, Association des éleveurs solidaires, Cruzalebes EARL, Des deux rivières EARL, Mounacq EARL v GAEC Reconnu La Vinardière, Ministère public
   (Case C-114/15)
   (2015/C 171/23)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Pau

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Association des Utilisateurs et Distributeurs de l’Agro Chimie Européenne (Audace), Phyteron 2000 SAS, Association des éleveurs solidaires, Cruzalebes EARL, Des deux rivières EARL, Mounacq EARL

      Respondents: GAEC Reconnu La Vinardière, Ministère public

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does national legislation comply with Articles 34 to 36 TFEU in so far as it reserves access to parallel imports of veterinary medicinal products exclusively to wholesale distributors in possession of the authorisation provided for under Article 65 of Directive 2001/82/EC (1), thus excluding those with retail distribution rights and livestock farmers?

               2.

               On a proper construction of Article 65 of Directive 2001/82/EC and Article 16 of Directive 2006/123/EC (2) (the ‘services’ Directive), is a Member State entitled not to recognise authorisations for the wholesale distribution of veterinary medicinal products that are issued by the competent authorities of other Member States to their own nationals and to require that those nationals additionally hold wholesale distribution authorisations issued by its own competent authorities in order to be entitled to apply for and to use authorisations for the parallel importation of veterinary medicinal products within that Member State?

               3.

               Does national legislation comply with Articles 34, 36 and 56 TFEU and Article 16 of Directive 2006/123 in so far as it assimilates parallel importers of veterinary medicinal products to holders of an operating licence which is not required under Directive 2001/82/EC, as amended, establishing a Community Code for veterinary medicinal products, and which consequently requires such importers to have available to them an establishment in the territory of the Member State concerned and to have successfully completed all the pharmacovigilance operations provided for under Articles 72 to 79 of Directive 2001/82/EC?

      (1)  Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36).


title: Case C-10/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 7 January 2016 — Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 7 January 2016 — Ignazio Messina & C. SpA v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti
   (Case C-10/16)
   (2016/C 111/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Genova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ignazio Messina & C. SpA

      Defendant: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti — Capitaneria di porto di Genova

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Regulation EEC No 4055/1986, (1) as interpreted by the Court of Justice, preclude the application of national legislation, such as Decree No 107/2009 of the President of the Republic, which requires payment of a fee that differs according to whether it relates to vessels coming from or going to a State outside the EU or vessels coming from or going to an Italian port?

               2.

               Does Regulation EEC No 4055/1986, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, preclude the application of national legislation, such as Decree No 107/2009 of the President of the Republic, which requires payment of a fee that differs according to whether it relates to vessels coming from or going to a State outside the EU or vessels coming from or going to a port within the EU, where that difference may be justified by the performance of public authority functions and/or duties and/or activities not expressly funded by that fee?

               3.

               Does Regulation EEC No 4055/1986, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, preclude the application of national legislation, such as Decree No 107/2009 of the President of the Republic, which requires payment of a fee that differs according to whether it relates to vessels coming from or going to a State outside the EU or vessels coming from or going to a port within the EU, where that difference may be justified by the performance of public authority functions by entities other than that which receives the fee?

               4.

               Does Regulation EEC No 4055/1986, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, preclude the application of national legislation, such as Decree No 107/2009 of the President of the Republic, which requires payment of a fee that differs according to whether it relates to vessels coming from or going to a State outside the EU or vessels coming from or going to a port within the EU, where that difference may be justified by the performance of public authority functions but no determination has been made of the individual costs to be covered, so that it is not possible to verify, either beforehand or afterwards, the costs of which services have in fact been covered [or] in what way and to what extent that fee has in fact funded those services?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1).


title: Case C-122/01 P: Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by T. Port GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 1 February 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-1/99 between T. Port GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 161/6                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.6.2001
—      by maintaining in force Article 15 in Title IV of Law                  1.   Must Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (1) on waste
       No 409 of 24 July 1985, which refers to Article 1 of Law                    (the Framework Directive) be interpreted as permitting a
       No 1398 of 14 December 1964, having the effect that                         process for processing waste in which more than one
       only dentists of Italian nationality may remain registered                  operation is performed, as described above, to be assessed
       as practitioners upon transferring their residence to                       as a whole?
       another Member State,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               2.   If so, does the process concerned constitute recovery
Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                         within the meaning of R1, R3 and R5 of Annex 11 B to
Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                             the Framework Directive if it results in the complete use
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skou-                        of the waste employed therein?
ris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and F. Macken,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  3.a. If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, is the
given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                  extent (expressed as calorific values) to which the waste
                                                                                contributes to the incineration process or the extent
1.     Declares that:
                                                                                (expressed as the level of material re-used) to which the
       —     by allowing Legislative Decree No 233 of the Provisional              ash residues from that waste contribute to the production
             Head of State of 13 September 1946 on the reconstitution              process relevant as regards the classification of each
             of the associations of the health-care professions and the            individual operation as recovery or disposal (R1, R3 and
             regulation of the practice of those professions, despite              R5 and D10 respectively)?
             amendment by Article 9 of Law No 362 of 8 November
             1991 on the rules for the re-organisation of the pharma-         3.b. If so, on the basis of which criteria is it necessary to
             ceutical sector, to remain in force in such a way as to leave         assess whether or not the contribution is sufficient for
             dentists practising in Italy still subject to a de facto              classification as recovery? In the absence of Community
             residence requirement,                                                criteria in this respect is it possible to apply national
       —     by maintaining in force Article 15 of Law No 409 of                   criteria?
             24 July 1985 on the profession of dental surgeon and on
             the provisions concerning the right of establishment and the     4.   If one operation must be classified as recovery and
             freedom to provide services of dentists who are nationals of          another operation as disposal, how must the process be
             Member States of the European Communities, which refers               regarded as a whole?
             to Article 1 of Law No 1398 of 14 December 1964
             amending and supplementing Law No 736 of 10 July
             1960 as regards the registration of Italian members of the
                                                                              (1) OJ L 194, 1975, p. 39.
             health-care professions residing abroad, having the effect
             that only dentists of Italian nationality may remain regis-
             tered with their professional association upon transferring
             their residence to another Member State,
       the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
       Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
       Articles 39 EC and 43 EQ;
2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                     Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by T. Port GmbH &
                                                                              Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 1 February
                                                                              2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                              of the European Communities in Case T-1/99 between
                                                                              T. Port GmbH & Co. KG and the Commission of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State                                         European Communities
by order of 13 March 2001 in the case of Verol Recycling
Limburg B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimte-
                  lijke Ordening en Milieubeheer                                                      (Case C-122/01 P)
                            (Case C-116/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/12)
                            (2001/C 161/11)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 February 2001
European Communities by order of 13 March 2001 by the                         by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Raad van State (Council of State), which was received at the                  European Communities in Case T-1/99 between T. Port GmbH
Court Registry on 15 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in                  & Co. KG and the Commission of the European Communities
the case of Verol Recycling Limburg B.V. and Minister van                     was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer on                     Communities on 19 March 2001 by T. Port GmbH & Co. KG,
the following questions:                                                      represented by G. Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.6.2001                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 161/7
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                     the export licences acquired. If the Court had made its
                                                                                doubts on this point known, the plaintiff would have
                                                                                been able to give a breakdown of the figures at the
—     partially annul the contested judgment; and                               hearing; the Court was therefore not entitled to reject the
                                                                                claim in its entirety on that ground.
—     adjudicate accordingly on the claim at first instance (1)
                                                                          (1) Not yet published in the ECR.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     The Court of First Instance wrongly proceeded on the
      basis that the plaintiff passed the cost of the export
      licences on to its customers and therefore suffered no
      loss. The plaintiff made no declaration on the point
      because the question of any possible unjustified loss did
      not in any event fall within the scope of its evidentiary
      burden.                                                             Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      If the plaintiff did pass on the cost of obtaining the export
      licences to its customers, it did so because the market
                                                                                (Case C-124/01)
      would bear those prices. Without the requirement to
      produce export licences from Costa Rica, the plaintiff
      would have obtained the same sale price but made a                                             (2001/C 161/13)
      greater profit. The loss arose with the payment for the
      illegal export licences, which thereby concluded legal
      relations between the party causing the loss and the party          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
      suffering it. Whether and to what extent the party                  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 March
      suffering the loss succeeds, on account of its skill and the        2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
      market situation, in opening up new sources of income               represented by Antonio Aresu, acting as Agent.
      for itself with which to compensate for its expenditure
      on the export licences, is an entirely different question to
      be determined in accordance with new (and appropriate)              The applicant claims that the Court should:
      causal links. That is how this legal question was deter-
      mined by the higher German courts. The relevant con-
      sideration is the recognition that the party causing the            —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      loss may not unfairly escape responsibility.                              and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the
                                                                                Council of 26 October 1994(1) on the protection of
—     The subsidiary reasoning of the Court of First Instance                   purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts
      concerning the balancing of advantages between the                        relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable
      various operators also fails to support the contested                     properties on a timeshare basis, the Italian Republic has
      judgment. The principle of balancing advantages applies                   failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
      only if the advantage which arises (raising of quotas,
      reduction in customs duties) stems from the same
      legal infringement as the loss (expenditure incurred in             —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
      obtaining export licences). Raising of quotas and customs
      duties, by contrast, do not constitute a legal infringement.
      How exactly this compensation for loss is to be quantified
      in the plaintiffs assessment of its loss is a matter which          Pleas in law and main arguments
      the plaintiff is unable to discover from the contested
      judgment.
—     The contested judgment suffers from an insufficient                 a)     Failure to comply with Article                          9 of
      statement of reasons, because it is not clear whether the                  Directive 94/47/EC
      Court is unprepared in principle to allow certification of
      the loss by sworn auditors as evidence.
                                                                          The Italian authorities indicated that they were to amend
                                                                          Article 11 of Decree No 427/98 in order fully to transpose
—     The Court of First Instance wrongly doubts the probative            Article 9 of the directive. However, no definite timetable has
      value of the customs payments, tested by auditors, which            yet been communicated concerning that amendment, from
      the plaintiff made for actual imports corresponding to              which it must be presumed that the infringement is continuing.