title: Case C-462/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 August 2016 — Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 August 2016 — Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey v Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-462/16)
   (2016/C 402/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt Bingen-Alzey

      Respondent in the appeal on a point of law: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG

      Question referred

   On the basis of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (judgment of 24 October 1996 in Elida Gibbs, C-317/94 (1)) and having regard to the principle of equal treatment under EU law, is a pharmaceutical company which supplies medicinal products entitled to a reduction of the taxable amount under Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax in the case where

               —

               it supplies those medicinal products to pharmacies via wholesalers,

               —

               the pharmacies supply those products, subject to tax, to persons with private health insurance,

               —

               the insurer of the medical expense insurance (the private health insurance company) reimburses the persons insured by it for the costs of purchasing the medicinal products, and

               —

               the pharmaceutical company is required to pay a ‘discount’ to the private health insurance company pursuant to a statutory provision?

      (1)  ECLI:EU:C:1996:400, paragraphs 28 and 31.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1998 in Case T-3/96: Roland Haas and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Proportion of remuneration transferred - Weighting - Adjustment of capital sum - Retroactivity)

text:
C 327/20              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                24.10.98
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a            of 6 April 1995 and 14 August 1995, by which the
judgment on 16 September 1998, in which it:                         Commission definitively rejected that part of the
                                                                    complaint filed by the applicant on 13 July 1988 against
                                                                    the interception, pursuant to Article 25 of the Universal
1. Dismisses the action for annulment as unfounded;                 Postal Union Convention, by a number of public postal
                                                                    operators, of mail which had been the subject of remailing
                                                                    Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as           Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P.
    those of the Commission and La Poste;                           BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.
                                                                    Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
                                                                    1998, in which it:
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
    Northern Ireland and the Post Office to bear their
    own costs.                                                      1. Joins Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95 for the purposes of
                                                                         the judgment;
(1) OJ C 189, 22.7.1995.
                                                                    2. Annuls the decision of 6 April 1995 in so far as it
                                                                         concerns commercial physical ABA remail;
                                                                    3. Dismisses the remainder of the actions;
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 16 September 1998                            4. Orders the Commission to bear the applicant's costs in
                                                                         Case T-133/95;
in Joined Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95: International
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) v Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)                          5. Orders the applicant to bear the Commission's costs in
                                                                         Case T-204/95;
(Competition Ð Remail Ð Action for annulment Ð
               Partial rejection of a complaint)
                         (98/C 327/34)                              6. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs in Cases
                                                                         T-133/95 and T-204/95.
               (Language of the case: English)                      (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995 and C 351, 30.12.1995.
In Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95: International Express
Carriers Conference (IECC), having its headquarters in
Geneva (Switzerland), represented by EÂric Morgan de
Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the
Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service in
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue
Guillaume, against Commission of the European                                           of 15 September 1998
Communities (Agents: initially Francisco Enrique
GonzaÂlez-Díaz and Rosemary Caudwell, and subsequently              in Case T-3/96: Roland Haas and Others v Commission
Rosemary Caudwell and Fabiola Mascardi, assisted by                                of the European Communities (1)
Nicholas Forwood QC), supported, in Cases T-133/95 and              (Officials Ð Proportion of remuneration transferred Ð
T-204/95, by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                 Weighting Ð Adjustment of capital sum Ð Retroactivity)
Northern Ireland (Agents: Stephanie Ridley, and, during
the oral procedure, also Nicholas Green QC), Deutsche                                       (98/C 327/35)
Post AG, represented by Dirk Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt,
Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, and The                               (Language of the case: French)
Post Office, represented by Ulick Bourke, Solicitor of the
Supreme Court of England and Wales, and, during the
oral procedure, also by Stuart Isaacs and Sarah Moore,              In Case T-3/96: Roland Haas, Hans-Werner Schmidt,
Barristers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            Siegfried Schweikle, Albert Veith and Horst Wohlfeil,
the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, and,              officials of the Commission of the European Communities,
in Case T-133/95, by La Poste, represented by HerveÂ                residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges
Lehman and Sylvain Rieuneau, of the Paris Bar, with an              Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, Ð applications for, in                    Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, against
substance, the annulment of the Commission decisions                Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 327/21
Gianluigi Valsesia), supported by the Council of the                A. Kalogeropoulos, President of the Chamber, and C. W.
European Union (Agents: initially Yves Cretien, Antonio             Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
Lucidi and Diego Canga Fano, then only Antonio Lucidi               given a judgment on 15 September 1998 a judgment in
and Diego Canga Fano) Ð application, first, for a                   which it:
declaration ordering the Commission to pay the additional
remuneration resulting from the application of the
weighting for Germany calculated on the basis of the cost           1. Dismisses the application;
of living in Berlin for the period from 1 October 1990 to
31 December 1994, as regards the proportion transferred
in German marks, with interest at the rate of 10 % per
                                                                    2. Orders the parties, and the Council, to bear their own
annum and, second, in so far as is necessary, the
                                                                        costs.
annulment of the Commission's decision of 9 March 1995
rejecting the applicants' requests for the payment of that
additional remuneration Ð the Court of First Instance               (1) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996.
(Third Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 15 September 1998 in which it:
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 September 1998
2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
                                                                    in Case T-50/96: Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH
                                                                    & Co. KG and Others v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.                                                                      Communities (1)
                                                                    (Action for annulment Ð Importation of high-quality beef
                                                                    (Hilton beef') Ð Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 Ð
                                                                    Article 13 Ð Commission decision refusing remission of
                                                                    import duties Ð Rights of the defence Ð Manifest error
                                                                                of assessment)
                                                                                (98/C 327/37)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 15 September 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
      in Case T-23/96 Elsa De Persio v Commission (1)
(Official Ð Reassignment Ð Request for transfer from the
Language Service to Category A Ð Removal of barriers to             In Case T-50/96: Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH
                        such transfers)                             & Co. KG, established in Bad Homburg (Germany), Gebr.
                                                                    Kruse GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany),
                        (98/C 327/36)                               Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, established in Hamburg,
                                                                    represented by Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt,
                                                                    Hamburg and Brussels, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 Rue
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     Mathias Hardt, supported by United Kingdom of Great
                                                                    Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: initially Stephanie
                                                                    Ridley and subsequently John E. Collins and David
In Case T-23/96 Elsa de Persio, an official of the                  Anderson), against Commission of the European
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                 Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) Ð application for
Brussels, represented by Giovanni Petroni and Franco                annulment of the Commission decision of 26 January
Giampietro, of the Rome Bar, and VeÂronique Laurent, of             1996 (Document K(96) 180 final) addressed to the Federal
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                    Republic of Germany and concerning the remission of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Gilles Bouneau, 15                    import duties Ð the Court of First Instance (First
Avenue du Bois, against Commission of the European                  Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, R. M.
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia), supported by               Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair,
Council of the European Union (Agents: Diego Canga                  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Fano and Paolo Cossu) Ð application for annulment of                17 September 1998, in which it:
the Commission's decision refusing to grant her request to
be placed in Category A, annulment of the Commission's
decision of 22 December 1995 reassigning the applicant to           1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 26 January 1996
that institution's Translation Service and, last, an order              addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and
that the Commission should pay her damages Ð the                        concerning an application for remission of import
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of                   duties;


title: Case T-105/08 P: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — Van Neyghem v Commission (Appeal — Staff cases — Dismissal of the action at first instance — Recruitment — Open competition — Non-admission to the oral tests — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/27

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — Van Neyghem v Commission
   (Case T-105/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Staff cases - Dismissal of the action at first instance - Recruitment - Open competition - Non-admission to the oral tests - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   (2008/C 327/51)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Kris Van Neyghem (Vissenaken, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and B. Eggers, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 in Case F-73/06 Van Neyghem v Commission [2007], not yet published in the ECR, seeking annulment of that judgment.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Kris Van Neyghem is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in the context of the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.


title: Case C-420/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Jutta Leth v Republik Österreich, Land Niederösterreich (Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Consent for such a project without an appropriate assessment — Objectives of that assessment — Conditions to which the existence of a right to compensation are subject — Whether protection of individuals against pecuniary damage is included)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Jutta Leth v Republik Österreich, Land Niederösterreich
   (Case C-420/11) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Consent for such a project without an appropriate assessment - Objectives of that assessment - Conditions to which the existence of a right to compensation are subject - Whether protection of individuals against pecuniary damage is included)
   2013/C 141/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jutta Leth

      Defendants: Republik Österreich, Land Niederösterreich

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) and Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17) — Authorisation of a project without an appropriate assessment of its impact on the environment — Action brought by an individual for compensation for the loss in value which the project causes to his immovable property — Objectives of the assessment of the impacts of certain public and private projects on the environment — Whether or not they include the protection of individuals against damage to their assets

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the environmental impact assessment, as provided for in that article, does not include the assessment of the effects which the project under examination has on the value of material assets. However, pecuniary damage, in so far as it is the direct economic consequence of the effects on the environment of a public or private project, is covered by the objective of protection pursued by Directive 85/337.
   The fact that an environmental impact assessment has not been carried out, in breach of the requirements of that directive, does not, in principle, by itself, according to European Union law, and without prejudice to rules of national law which are less restrictive as regards State liability, confer on an individual a right to compensation for purely pecuniary damage caused by the decrease in the value of his property as a result of the environmental effects of that project. However, it is for the national court to determine whether the requirements of European Union law applicable to the right to compensation, including the existence of a direct causal link between the breach alleged and the damage sustained, have been satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.2011.


               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/19

         Removal from the register of Case C-330/04 (1)

   (2005/C 296/38)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 22 June 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-330/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2000 in Case T-337/94 (92): Enso-Gutzeit Oy v Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
C 163/26                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.6.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 3. Orders the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 5000 in
                                                                                compensation for the non-material damage she suffered;
                                                                            4. Dismisses the rest of the action;
                         of 23 March 2000
                                                                            5. Orders the applicant to pay 10 % of her own costs;
                                                                            6. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs plus 90 % of those
                                                                                incurred by the applicant.
in Case T-197/98, Charlotte Rudolph v Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
(Officials — Time-limit for bringing a complaint — Service
of decision — Languages — Annulment of a pre-recruitment
  medical examination on the ground of a false declaration)
                          (2000/C 163/50)                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 March 2000
                                                                            in Case T-337/94 (92): Enso-Gutzeit Oy v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Taxation of costs)
In Case T-197/98: Charlotte Rudolph, a former official of                                             (2000/C 163/51)
the Commission of the European Communities, resident in
Brussels, represented by O. Eben of the Brussels Bar, Cabinet
Tonnar, 29 Rue du Fossé, Esch-sur-AIzette, Luxembourg v                                         (Language of the case: English)
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
sia and J. Currall) — Application for annulment of the
Commission’s decision of 17 November 1997 declaring the                     In Case T-337/94 (92): Enso-Gutzeit Oy, established in Helsin-
applicant’s pre-recruitment medical examination null and void               ki, represented by I. Van Bael and J.-F. Bellis, of the Brussels
and requiring her to undergo a further physical examination,                Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
and of the Commission’s decision of 7 December 1998                         Chambers of L. Lorang, 3 Rue de la Chapelle, against Com-
annulling the decisions of 3 July and 14 December 1995                      mission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal) —
recruiting the applicant as an official, and for compensation               application for taxation of the costs to be paid by the defendant
for non-material damage allegedly suffered by her — the Court               to the applicant following the judgment of the Court of First
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili,                   Instance of 14 May 1998 in Case T-337/94 Enso-Gutzeit v
President and R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;                    Commission [1998] ECR II-1571 — the Court of First
J. Palacio Gonzàlez, Administrator on behalf of the Registrar,              Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
has given a judgment on 23 March 2000, in which it:                         of: B. Vesterdorf, President, A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras
                                                                            and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order
                                                                            on 15 March 2000, in which it orders:
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 17 November 1997
     declaring the applicant’s pre-recruitment medical examination          The total amount of costs to be paid by the Commission to the
     null and void and requiring her to undergo a further physical          applicant is fixed at BEF 4 500 000.
     examination;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 392 of 31.12.1994.
2. Orders the Commission to pay the applicant an amount equal to
     arrears in salary plus interest at the rate of 5.5 % per annum
     from the date on which the applicant’s salary ceased to be paid;


20150731024616752015/C 270/172352015CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150521141522Case C-235/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Maria Bosneaga v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN1420120150521EN0017142152Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Constanţa (Romania) lodged on 21 May 2015 — Maria Bosneaga v Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor
   (Case C-235/15)2015/C 270/17Language of the case: Romanian
      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Constanţa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Maria Bosneaga

      Respondent: Instituția Prefectului — Județul Constanța — Serviciul Public Comunitar Regim Permise de Conducere și Înmatriculare a Vehiculelor

      Question referred

   Does Article 110 TFEU preclude the creation, under Article 4(d) of Decree-Law No 9/2013, of an obligation to pay an environmental stamp duty in respect of second-hand motor vehicles originating in the European Union when ownership of a second-hand motor vehicle is registered if a judicial authority has ordered that that motor vehicle is to be registered without payment of the special tax on automobiles and motor vehicles, the pollution tax for motor vehicles or the tax on pollutant emissions from motor vehicles, or has ordered that those taxes are to be refunded?


title: Case T-235/13: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — Gopack v Commission (Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/55

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Gopack v Commission
   (Case T-235/13) (1)

   ((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/93
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Gopack (Manosque, France) (represented by: J. M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Gopack is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-46/14: Order of the General Court of 5 August 2015 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Wattline (WATTLINE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/12

         Order of the General Court of 5 August 2015 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Wattline (WATTLINE)
   (Case T-46/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 337/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sales & Solutions GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Wattline GmbH (Ruderting, Germany) (represented by: C. Flisek, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2013 (Case R 1668/2012-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Sales & Solutions GmbH and Wattline GmbH

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Sales & Solutions GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.


title: Case C-55/13: Action brought on 31 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/11

         Action brought on 31 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-55/13)
   2013/C 101/25
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 2(15), (16), (22), (34) and (35), Article 3(4) and (9), Article 6(1) to (3) and Article 7(1) and (3); Article 9, Article 14 and Articles 17 to 23; Articles 10 and 11; Article 16; Article 26(2)(c), second sentence et seq., and Article 26(2)(d), third and fourth sentences; Article 26(3); Article 27(2); Article 29; Article 31; Article 36; Article 42(1) to (4); Article 43(1), (4) and (8); and Article 44 of, and points 1 and 2 of Annex I to, Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC, (1) and in any event by not notifying the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 54(1) of that directive;

               —

               impose upon the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2009/73/EC at the daily rate of EUR 88 819,20 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing Directive 2009/73/EC expired on 3 March 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94.


title: Judgment of the Court of 11 July 2000 in Case C-473/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i Stockholm): Kemikalieinspektionen v Toolex Alpha AB (Free movement of goods — National general prohibition on the use of trichloroethylene — Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 30 EC))

text:
4.11.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 316/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           of 11 July 2000                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-473/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                             of 13 July 2000
the Kammarrätten i Stockholm): Kemikalieinspektionen
                      v Toolex Alpha AB (1)
                                                                           in Case C-46/97: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Free movement of goods — National general prohibition on
the use of trichloroethylene — Article 36 of the EC Treaty
            (now, after amendment, Article 30 EC))                                    (Clearance of EAGGF accounts — 1992)
                          (2000/C 316/04)                                                            (2000/C 316/05)
                   (Language of the case: Swedish)                                             (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-46/97: Hellenic Republic (Agents: P. Mylonopoulos
In Case C-473/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              and I. Chalkias) v Commission of the European Communities
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Kammarrätten i                 (Agents: M. Condou-Durande) — application for partial annul-
Stockholm, Sweden, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings             ment of Commission Decision 96/701/EC of 20 November
pending before that court between Kemikalieinspektionen and                1996 amending Decision 96/311/EC on the clearance of the
Toolex Alpha AB — on the interpretation of Articles 30 and                 accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC                  expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the European
and 30 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,             Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in
President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón,             respect of certain expenditure for 1993 (OJ 1996 L 323,
R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), J.-P. Puissochet,                   p. 26), in the part relating to Greece — the Court (Sixth
G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur)                 Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
and F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,            Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kap-
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  teyn, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and V. Skouris,
11 July 2000, in which it has ruled:                                       Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
                                                                           for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in
                                                                           which it:
National legislation which lays down a general prohibition on the
use of trichloroethylene for industrial purposes and establishes a
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the application;
system of individual exemptions, granted subject to conditions, is
justified under Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Article 30 EC) on grounds of the protection of health of humans.
                                                                           2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                  (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.


title: Case C-314/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 August 2009 — Stadt Graz v Strabag AG, Teerag-Asdag AG, Bauunternehmung Granit GesmbH

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 August 2009 — Stadt Graz v Strabag AG, Teerag-Asdag AG, Bauunternehmung Granit GesmbH
   (Case C-314/09)
   2009/C 267/65
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Stadt Graz

      Respondents: Strabag AG, Teerag-Asdag AG, Bauunternehmung Granit GesmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 1(1)(c) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, (1) or other provisions of that directive, preclude a national rule under which damages claims for the contracting authority’s infringement of Community procurement law are subject to the requirement of fault, also where that rule is applied to the effect that in principle fault on the part of organs of the contracting authority is to be assumed and its reliance on the absence of individual abilities, and thus to a lack of personal fault, is excluded?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the negative:
               Is Article 2(7) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts to be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of the obligation in it to ensure the effective enforcement of decisions taken in review procedures, the decision of a procurement review body binds all parties to the procedure, thus also including the contracting authority?

               3.

               If question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
               Is it permissible under Article 2(7) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts for the contracting authority to disregard a final decision of a procurement review body, or is it even obliged to disregard it and, if so, under what conditions?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.


title: Case C-143/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Article 2(1) — Article 2(2)(a) — Article 6(1) — Age discrimination — On-call employment contract which may be concluded with persons under 25 years of age — Automatic termination of the employment contract when the worker reaches 25 years of age)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro
   (Case C-143/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) - Article 2(2)(a) - Article 6(1) - Age discrimination - On-call employment contract which may be concluded with persons under 25 years of age - Automatic termination of the employment contract when the worker reaches 25 years of age))
   (2017/C 300/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl

      Defendant: Antonino Bordonaro

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 2(1), Article 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises an employer to conclude an on-call contract with a worker of under 25 years of age, whatever the nature of the services to be provided, and to dismiss that worker as soon as he reaches the age of 25 years, since that provision pursues a legitimate aim of employment and labour market policy and the means laid down for the attainment of that objective are appropriate and necessary.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.


title: Case F-70/14: Action brought on 22 July 2014  — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/28

         Action brought on 22 July 2014 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-70/14)
   2014/C 388/34
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions concerning the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights into the European Union pension scheme which apply the new General Implementing Provisions (GIPs) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 and, in addition, an order that the Commission compensate the applicants for the harm resulting from the excessively long period taken to deal with their transfer applications.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions calculating the increase in their respective pension rights acquired before their entry into force at the Commission;

               —

               In addition, order the Commission to compensate the applicants for the harm suffered due to the errors committed which led to the excessively long period taken to deal with their application to transfer pension rights;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-320/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — Citicorp v OHIM (Community trade mark — Word mark LIVE RICHLY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Right to be heard — Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 2005 — Citicorp v OHIM
   (Case T-320/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark LIVE RICHLY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Right to be heard - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2005/C 281/39)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Citicorp (New York, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and A. Pohlmann, lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen, P. Bullock and A. von Mühlendahl, Agents)
   Application for
   annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2003 (Case R 85/2002-3), concerning an application to register the word mark LIVE RICHLY as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, in addition to one half of the costs incurred by the defendant;

               3)

               Orders the defendant to bear one half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275, 15.11.2003.


title: Case T-337/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — CSF v Commission (Interim measures — Public health, safety, consumers and workers protection in order to address the risks resulting from the use of machinery — Measure taken by the Danish authorities prohibiting a type of multi-purpose earthmoving machinery without an appropriate protective structure — Commission decision declaring the measure to be justified — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/19

         Order of the President of the General Court of 11 November 2013 — CSF v Commission
   (Case T-337/13 R)
   (Interim measures - Public health, safety, consumers and workers protection in order to address the risks resulting from the use of machinery - Measure taken by the Danish authorities prohibiting a type of multi-purpose earthmoving machinery without an appropriate protective structure - Commission decision declaring the measure to be justified - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)
   2014/C 15/28
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: CSF Srl (Grumolo delle Abbadesse, Italy) (represented by: R. Santoro, S. Armellini and R. Bugaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos, acting as Agent, and by M. Pappalardo, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision 2013/173/EU of 8 April 2013 on a measure taken by Denmark under Article 11 of Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council prohibiting a type of multi-purpose earthmoving machinery (OJ 2013 L 101, p. 29).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-133/03: Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Shering-Plough Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communities and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products ("EMEA")

text:
C 171/32               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        19.7.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                approved under the name ‘Allex’. This Marketing Authorisation
                                                                           (‘MA’) covers three pharmaceutical forms: film-coated tablets,
—     annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 13 February             syrup and an oral lyophilisate.
      2003 and/or the corrigendum of the decision of the First
      Board of Appeal of 13 March 2003;
                                                                           On 2 October 2002, the applicant submitted to the EMEA an
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs associated with             application for a type I variation of the MA to change the
      these proceedings.                                                   name of the oral lyophilisate form from ‘Allex 5 mg oral
                                                                           lyophilisate’ to ‘Allex Reditabs 5 mg oral lyophilisate’. In the
                                                                           light of further explanations given by the applicant, the EMEA
                                                                           refused with the contested decision to allow the name change.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           In support of its claim, the applicant invokes violations of the
The origin of the action is the same as in Case T-380/02                   applicable legislation and of the principle of non-discrimi-
(SUCCESS-MARKETING Unternehmensberatungsgesellschaft                       nation. Furthermore, the applicant submits that its rights of
v OHIM, (OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003, p. 35)), and the pleas in law              defence have been violated and that the EMEA has violated the
and arguments correspond to those submitted in that case.                  obligation to state reasons.
                                                                           According to the applicant, the contested decision wrongfully
                                                                           applied the Judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
                                                                           T-123/00 Thomae ( 1) to refuse the proposed name change.
                                                                           The applicant argues that the present case does not concern
                                                                           the question of whether different names can be used for the
Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Shering-Plough Ltd.                     same medicinal product but the question of whether different
against the Commission of the European Communities                         names can be used for different medicinal products covered by
and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal                    the same MA. As a consequence, the applicant submits that
                       Products (‘EMEA’)                                   the Judgment in Case T-123/00 does not apply nor can it be
                                                                           extended to apply in the present case.
                         (Case T-133/03)
                                                                           The applicant claims furthermore that the EMEA has violated
                                                                           the principle of non-discrimination. According to the appli-
                         (2003/C 171/55)
                                                                           cant, there is no objective justification to treat the Marketing
                                                                           Authorisation Holders whose two pharmaceutical forms are
                   (Language of the case: English)                         covered by the same MA and those whose two pharmaceutical
                                                                           forms are covered by two MA differently.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  (1 ) Judgement of 10.12.2002, Case T-123/00 Dr. Karl Thomae
ties and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal                    GmbH v Commission (not published yet).
Products (‘EMEA’) was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 18 April 2003 by
Shering-Plough Ltd., Brussels, Belgium, represented by Dr.
G. Berrisch and Mr P. Bogaert, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Action brought on 14 April 2003 by Sniace, S.A. against
—     annul the Decision of 14 February 2003 of the EMEA                          the Commission of the European Communities
      rejecting a so-called type I variation for the name of the
      medicinal product ‘Allex 5 mg oral lyophilisate’ into
      ‘Allex Reditabs 5 mg oral lyophilisate’.                                                     (Case T-141/03)
—     order the Defendants to pay the Applicant’s costs                                            (2003/C 171/56)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is active in the field of medicinal products and             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
is the Marketing Authorisation Holder for medicinal products               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case T-479/09: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER Garden) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER Garden — Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2011 — ATB Norte v OHIM — Bricocenter Italia (BRICO CENTER Garden)
   (Case T-479/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BRICO CENTER Garden - Earlier Community figurative marks ATB CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE Brico Centro and CENTROS DE BRICOLAGE BricoCentro - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 232/46
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ATB Norte, SL (Burgos, Spain) (represented initially by P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla, H. Curtis-Oliver and G. Marín Raigal, and subsequently by F. Brandolini Kujman, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and G. Mannucci, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bricocenter Italia Srl (Rozzano, Italy) (represented by: G. Ghidini, M. Mergati and C. Signorini, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1044/2008-4) relating to opposition proceedings between ATB Norte, SL and Bricocenter Italia Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 24 September 2009 (Case R 1044/2008-4) inasmuch as it upheld the appeal of Bricocenter Italia Srl before the Board of Appeal regarding the services of ‘advertising’, ‘business management’ and ‘business administration’ covered by the Community trade mark application;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders ATB Norte, SL, Bricocenter Italia and OHIM each to bear their own costs incurred during the proceedings before the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-478/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 21 November 2006 — Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others v GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Efetio Athinon (Greece) lodged on 21 November 2006 — Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others v GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton
   (Case C-478/06)
   (2007/C 20/13)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Efetio Athinon
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Kokkoris D. Tsanas K. EPE and Others

      Respondent: GlaxoSmithKline Anonimi Emporiki Viomikhaniki Etairia Farmakeftikon Proionton
   Questions referred:

               1.

               Where the refusal of an undertaking holding a dominant position to meet fully the orders sent to it by pharmaceutical wholesalers is due to its intention to limit their export activity and, thereby, the harm caused to it by parallel trade, does the refusal constitute per se an abuse within the meaning of Article 82 EC? Is the answer to that question affected by the fact that the parallel trade is particularly profitable for the wholesalers because of the different prices, resulting from State intervention, in the Member States of the European Union, that is to say by the fact that pure conditions of competition do not prevail in the pharmaceuticals market, but a regime which is governed to a large extent by State intervention? Is it ultimately correct for a national court to apply Community competition rules in the same way to markets which function competitively and those in which competition is distorted by State intervention?

               2.

               If the Court holds that limitation of parallel trade, for the reasons set out above, does not constitute an abusive practice in every case where it is engaged in by an undertaking holding a dominant position, how is possible abuse to be assessed? In particular:

               2.1

               Do the percentage by which normal domestic consumption is exceeded and/or the loss suffered by an undertaking holding a dominant position compared with its total turnover and total profits constitute appropriate criteria? If so, how are the level of that percentage and the level of that loss determined (the latter as a percentage of turnover and total profits), above which the conduct in question may be abusive?

               2.2

               Is an approach entailing the balancing of interests appropriate, and, if so, what are the interests to be compared? In particular:

                           (a)

                           is the answer affected by the fact that the ultimate consumer/patient derives limited financial advantage from the parallel trade and

                           (b)

                           is account to be taken, and to what extent, of the interests of social insurance bodies in cheaper medicinal products?

               2.3

               What other criteria and approaches are considered appropriate in the present case?


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 September 2005 in Case C-40/04: (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus) Syuichi Yonemoto (Approximation of laws — Machines — Directive 98/37/EC — Compatibility of national law requiring the importer to verify that machinery accompanied by an EC declaration of conformity is safe)

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 8 September 2005
   in Case C-40/04: (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus) Syuichi Yonemoto (1)

   (Approximation of laws - Machines - Directive 98/37/EC - Compatibility of national law requiring the importer to verify that machinery accompanied by an EC declaration of conformity is safe)
   (2005/C 271/12)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-40/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Korkein oikeus ((Finland), made by order of 30 January 2004, received at the Court on 3 February 2004, in the criminal proceedings against Syuichi Yonemoto — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery precludes the application of national provisions which require the importer in a Member State of a machine manufactured in another Member State, bearing the CE marking and accompanied by an EC declaration of conformity, to ensure that that machinery meets the essential health and safety requirements laid down by that directive.

               2.

               That directive does not preclude the application of national provisions which require the importer in a Member State of a machine manufactured in another Member State to:

                           —

                           ensure, before the machinery is delivered to the user, that it bears the CE marking and is accompanied by the EC declaration of conformity translated into the language or one of the languages of the Member State into which the machinery is imported, and instructions translated into the language or languages of that State;

                           —

                           provide, after the machinery has been delivered to the user, all appropriate information and cooperation to the national inspection authorities if it transpires that that machinery poses risks to safety or health, provided that such requirements do not amount to making the importer subject to the obligation to verify himself that the machinery complies with the essential health and safety requirements laid down by that directive.

               3.

               Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of Article 249 EC must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing criminal penalties to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down by Directive 98/37, provided that those penalties are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and are, in any event, effective, proportionate and deterrent.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 03.04.2004.


title: Case T-287/08: Action brought on 25 July 2008 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Laboratorios Inibsa (ZYDUS)

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/17

         Action brought on 25 July 2008 — Cadila Healthcare v OHIM — Laboratorios Inibsa (ZYDUS)
   (Case T-287/08)
   (2008/C 247/34)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Cadila Healthcare Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented by: S. Bailey, A. Juaristi and F. Potin, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Inibsa, SA (Llissa de Vall, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 May 2008 in case R 1322/2007-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ZYDUS’ for goods in classes 3, 5 and 10 — application No 3 277 662

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

      Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration No 2 360 938 of the mark ‘CIBUS’ for goods in class 5; Spanish trade mark registration No 2 360 939 of the mark ‘CIBUS’ for goods in class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Uphold the opposition with respect to all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in its decision that the Opposition Division stated the reasons for its decision and, thus, that Article 73 of Council Regulation 40/94 was not breached; the Board of Appeal erred in its decision that there was a likelihood of confusion between the earlier trade marks and the trade mark applied for, in breach of general principles of trade marks law and, in particular, Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.


               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/1

         (2008/C 236/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 223, 30.8.2008

   Past publications

      OJ C 209, 15.8.2008

      OJ C 197, 2.8.2008

      OJ C 183, 19.7.2008

      OJ C 171, 5.7.2008

      OJ C 158, 21.6.2008

      OJ C 142, 7.6.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-266/03: Action brought on 18 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 200/16                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        23.8.2003
Secondly, reserving delegated management contracts solely to                     with the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, Rumania
the legal entities listed in Article 4 of the Law of 12 July 1985                and Poland concerning inland navigation, which affect the
on the supervision of public work and its relation with the                      Community rules adopted by the Community in Council
supervision of private work, as amended, constitutes a restric-                  Regulation (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991
tion on the principle of the freedom to provide services. Such a                 laying down the conditions under which non-resident
restriction cannot be justified either by Article 45, inasmuch as                carriers may transport goods or passengers by inland
the tasks entrusted are not connected, even occasionally, with                   waterway within a Member State. Article 7 of those
the exercise of official authority, or by Article 46, since grounds              agreements provides, subject to special authorisation, for
of public policy, public security or public health are not applic-               access to cabotage in Luxembourg by carriers from the
able in the present case.                                                        non-member countries concerned.
(1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                                                                           —     The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not observed its
    coordination of procedures for the award of public service                   obligations under Article 10 EC by negotiating,
    contracts (OJ L 209, 24.07.1992, p. 1).                                      concluding, ratifying and arranging for the entry into
                                                                                force of the bilateral agreements in question after the
                                                                                grant of a negotiating mandate by the Council to the
                                                                                Commission to negotiate an agreement between the EEC,
                                                                                on the one hand, and Poland and the States parties to the
                                                                                Danube Convention (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania,
                                                                                Bulgaria, the former USSR, the former Yugoslavia and
Action brought on 18 June 2003 by the Commission of                              Austria), on the other.
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                             Luxembourg                                    —     The bilateral agreements concluded by the Grand Duchy
                                                                                of Luxembourg are incompatible with Council Regulation
                           (Case C-266/03)                                       (EC) No 1356/96 of 8 July 1996 on common rules
                                                                                applicable to the transport of goods or passengers by
                                                                                inland waterway between Member States with a view to
                           (2003/C 200/28)
                                                                                establishing freedom to provide such transport services.
                                                                                The Polish, Rumanian, Czech and Slovak shippers and
                                                                                navigation companies capable of being authorised under
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                              the bilateral agreements in question to effect transports
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-                       between Luxembourg and the other Member States do
nities on 18 June 2003 by the Commission of the European                         not satisfy the conditions laid down in that regulation.
Communities, represented by C. Schmidt and W. Wils, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1991 L 373, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ 1996 L 175, p. 7.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:
1.    Declare that, under the first paragraph of Article 226 of
      the Treaty establishing the European Community, the
      Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by individually negotiating,
      concluding, ratifying, arranging for the entry into force
      and refusing to renounce the bilateral agreements with the
      Czech and Slovak Federative Republic, Rumania and                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'appel of
      Poland concerning inland navigation, has failed to fulfil            the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by judgment of that
      its obligations under Article 10 EC and Council Regula-              Court in the civil proceedings between 1. Administration
      tion (EEC) No 3921/91 of 16 December 1991 laying                     de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines, and 2. État du
      down the conditions under which non-resident carriers                Grand-Duché de Luxembourg and Vermietungsgesellschaft
      may transport goods or passengers by inland waterway                                          Objekt Kirchberg
      within a Member State (1) and Council Regulation (EC)
      No 1356/96 of 8 July 1996 on common rules applicable
      to the transport of goods or passengers by inland                                             (Case C-269/03)
      waterway between Member States with a view to estab-
      lishing freedom to provide such transport services (2).
                                                                                (2003/C 200/29)
2.    Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'appel
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            (Court of Appeal) of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 20 June 2003, for a
—     The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has infringed the                      preliminary ruling in the civil proceedings between 1. Adminis-
      exclusive Community competence as defined in the                     tration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines (Registration and
      ERTA case (Case 22/70 Commission v Council [1971]                    Land Authority), and 2. État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
      ECR 263) by negotiating, concluding, ratifying and arran-            and Vermietungsgesellschaft Objekt Kirchberg on the following
      ging for the entry into force of the bilateral agreements            question:


21.2.2004              EN                  Official Journal of the European Union                                     C 47/27
       Removal from the register of Case C-126/02 (1)              from the register of Case C-80/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
                         (2004/C 47/48)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
By order of 23 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-126/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-108/03 (1)
(1) OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 47/52)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case C-35/03 (1)               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-108/03: Commission of the
                         (2004/C 47/49)                            European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.
By order of 6 November 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-35/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-142/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/53)
       Removal from the register of Case C-57/03 (1)               By order of 11 November 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2004/C 47/50)                            from the register of Case C-142/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of          (1) OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-57/03: Commission of the
European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 83, 5.4.2003.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-218/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/54)
       Removal from the register of Case C-80/03 (1)
                                                                   By order of 10 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                         (2004/C 47/51)                            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-218/03: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal            (1) OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.


title: Case C-310/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2006 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Agriculture — Chapter 10a of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, inserted by Article 1(20) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 — Amendment of the support scheme for cotton — Condition that the area is maintained at least until the boll opening — Compliance with Protocol 4 on cotton annexed to the Act of Accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Communities — Concept of production aid — Obligation to state reasons — Misuse of powers — General principles of proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 September 2006 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-310/04) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - Agriculture - Chapter 10a of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, inserted by Article 1(20) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 - Amendment of the support scheme for cotton - Condition that the area is maintained at least until the boll opening - Compliance with Protocol 4 on cotton annexed to the Act of Accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Communities - Concept of production aid - Obligation to state reasons - Misuse of powers - General principles of proportionality and protection of legitimate expectations)
   (2006/C 281/10)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Nolin and S. Pardo Quintillán, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Chapter 10a of Title IV of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003, inserted by Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (OJ 2004 L 161, p. 48) — Alteration of the support scheme in the cotton sector — Aid to producers divided into two parts (single payment and aid linked to cotton production)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Chapter 10a of Title IV of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001, inserted by Article 1(20) of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004;

               2.

               Orders the effects of that annulment to be suspended until the adoption, within a reasonable time, of a new regulation;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.9.2004.


title: Case F-122/10: Action brought on 19 November 2010 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/34

         Action brought on 19 November 2010 — Cocchi and Falcione v Commission
   (Case F-122/10)
   2011/C 63/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Giorgio Cocchi (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) and Nicola Falcione (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to withdraw a proposal relating to transfer of the applicants’ pension rights when already accepted by them.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 12 February 2010‘annulling’ the proposal of 16 September 2009, accepted by Mr Falcione on 9 October 2009, relating to the transfer, under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, of his pension rights;

               —

               Annul the decision of 23 February 2010‘annulling’ the proposal of 13 October 2009, accepted by Mr Cocchi on 10 November 2010, relating to the transfer, under Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, of his pension rights;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 200 000 to Mr Falcione and EUR 50 000 to Mr Cocchi;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Appeals and Objections Committee of the Højesteret by decision of that court of 20 December 1996 in the case of Skatteministeriet v. Sportgoods A/S (Case C-413/96)

text:
8 . 3 . 97               EN [                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 74/13
Registry on 23 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in                 2 . Must the words '[. . .] legally due [. . .]' in Article 2(1 )
the proceedings brought by Kainuun Liikenne Oy and Oy                          of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 1697/79 be
Pohjolan Liikenne Ab on the following questions :                              interpreted as meaning that:
1 . Is the Regulation on public service obligations                            — it is the factual and legal circumstances at the time
       ( Regulation (EEC ) No 1191 /69 (') as amended by
                                                                                when the competent authorities receive a
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1893/91 (2 )), in particular                          declaration containing an incorrect tariff heading
       Article 4 in conjunction with Article 1 ( 3 ), to be                        that are conclusive for determining whether an
                                                                                amount is due ?
       interpreted as meaning that it entitles a transport
       undertaking to have a part, of whatever size, of its
       operating obligation terminated, for example, only a                         or as meaning that:
       certain part of one route operated ?
                                                                               — it is the factual and legal circumstances at the time
                                                                                when the competent authorities establish that a
2 . If the answer to the first question is wholly or                                declaration contained an incorrect tariff heading
       conditionally in the affirmative, in which case the                          that are conclusive for determining whether an
       Korkein Hallinto-oikeus may remit the case to the                            amount is due ?
       Laaninhallitus for a fresh decision, in order to reach a
       final decision in the case the question arises whether it
       also follows, from the right given to transport                    3 . A. What is the legal effect of a decision by the
       undertakings in the Regulation on public service                             European Commission, after consultation with the
       obligations to have a service obligation partially                           Customs Code Committee, addressed to a Member
       terminated, that the authorities' power under national                       State following a request by a Member State to the
        law to revoke a traffic licence in order reasonably to                      Committee that it take a decision on whether there
       reorganize the traffic is precluded or restricted where                      was, in specified circumstances, justification for
       the need to reorganize results from a partial                                granting remission of import duties, and in which
       termination .                                                                the Commission and the Committee decided that
                                                                                there was no justification for granting remission of
 (') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( I), p. 276.                                 import duties referred to in the Member State's
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 169, 29 . 6 . 1991 , p. 1 .                                          request to the Committee ?
                                                                               B. Is it compatible with the legal effects described in
                                                                                the answer to question 3 .A for a court in the
                                                                                Member State concerned to rule in a judgment
                                                                                that there was no necessary legal basis for post
                                                                                clearance recovery of import duties ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Appeals and
 Objections Committee of the Hojesteret by decision of
 that      court   of 20      December     1996   in  the   case  of
                 Skatteministeriet v. Sportgoods A/S
                            ( Case C-413/96 )
                               ( 97/C 74/25 )                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
                                                                          Adjudicator, by decision of the Adjudicator of
                                                                          20 December 1996, in the case of Nour Eddline El Yassini
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        against Secretary of State for the Home Department
 European Communities by decision of the Appeals and                                              ( Case C-416/96 )
  Objections Committee of the Hojesteret ( Supreme Court)
  of 20 December 1996, which was received at the Court                                               97/C 74/26 )
  Registry on 27 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in
  the case of Skatteministeriet ( Ministry of Fiscal Affairs ) v.
  Sportgoods A/S on the following questions :                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by decision of the Immigration
                                                                           Adjudicator of 20 December 1996, which was received at
  1 . Must Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )                   the Court Registry on 31 December 1996 , for a
        No 1697/79 on the post-clearance recovery of import                preliminary ruling in the case of Nour Eddline El Yassini
         duties or export duties which have not been required              against Secretary of State for the Home Department, on
         of the person liable for payment on goods entered for             the following questions:
         a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay
         such duties ( OJ No L 197, 1979, p. 1 ) be interpreted
         as meaning that post-clearance recovery may be                    1 . In a case of a Moroccan national, who is lawfully
         effected only in cases in which there is a difference in               resident in a Member State and who is lawfully
         the amount of duty involved, but not in cases of                       employed in that Member State, does the term
         incorrect declarations of headings which have not had                  'working conditions' in Article 40 of the EC/Morocco
         any bearing on the amount ?                                            Cooperation Agreement include security of such