title: Case C-156/00: Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.7.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 211/5
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
— Declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, to
    communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed                 Pleas in law and main arguments
    period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
    necessary to comply with European Parliament and
    Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending               Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
    Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concern-               directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
    ing the coordination of procedures for the award of public           each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
    service contracts, public supply contracts and public works          required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
    contracts respectively (1), the Italian Republic has failed to       their transposition. That time-limit expired on 1 July 1998
    fulfil its obligations under that directive; and                     without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
                                                                         necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                           referred to in the Commission’s application.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (1) OJ 1997 L 335, p. 15.
Under Article 249 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
their transposition. That time-limit expired on 13 October
1998 without the Italian Republic having brought into force
the necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive           Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Kingdom of the
referred to in the Commission’s application.                             Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
(1) OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1.
                                                                                (Case C-156/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/09)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Action brought on 22 February 2000 by the Commission                     ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                 Communities on 27 April 2000 by the Kingdom of the
                                                                         Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the Euro-
                                                                         pean Law Section in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The
                          (Case C-56/00)
                                                                         Hague, acting as Agent.
                         (2000/C 211/08)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 February              — Annul the Commission decision of 23 February 2000
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           determining in a particular case that an application for
represented by Richard Wainwright, of its Legal Service, and                  remission of import duties in a specified amount is
Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the                     inadmissible and that the remission of import duties in a
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in               separate amount is unjustified (file REM 23/99);
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                       — Order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— Declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, communi-
    cate to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the            — Infringement of Article 589 of Commission Regulation
    laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary                 (EEC) No 2454/93 (1); in the alternative, infringement of
    to comply with Directive 97/63/EC of the European                         the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC
    Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 1997                         in so far as the contested decision declared inadmissible
    amending Directives 76/116/EEC, 80/876/EEC, 89/284/                       that part of the application for remission which seeks
    EEC and 89/530/EEC on the approximation of the laws of                    to recover compensatory interest: Article 589(3), fifth
    the Member States relating to fertilizers (1), the Italian                subparagraph, of Regulation No 2454/93 provides that if
    Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                  the Commission fails to raise an objection against acceding
    directive; and                                                            to the request within two months of the date of
 ---pagebreak--- C 211/6                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22.7.2000
     acknowledgment of receipt, the Member State shall waive             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesar-
     application of Article 589(1) of Regulation No 2454/93.             beitsgericht, by order of that court of 22 March 2000
     Compensatory interest thus comes within the scope of the            in the case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Beata
     customs debt.                                                                           Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer
— Infringement of Article 221 of Council Regulation (EEC)
     No 2913/92 (2) (Community Customs Code) in so far as                                       (Case C-162/00)
     the contested decision declared part of the application to
     be inadmissible on the ground that the part in question                                    (2000/C 211/10)
     had become time-barred: the Commission misconstrues
     Article 221 of the Community Customs Code and fails to
     appreciate that the question whether a customs debt                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     has become time-barred is a matter coming within the                European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
     jurisdiction of national courts and not within the power of         (Federal Labour Court), of 22 March 2000, received at the
     the Commission.                                                     Court Registry on 2 May 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                         case of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen against Beata Pokrzeptow-
— Infringement of Article 239 of the Community Customs                   icz-Meyer on the following questions:
     Code and of Article 905 of Regulation No 2454/93; in the
     alternative, infringement of the principle of pro-                  1. Does Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement of
     portionality; in the further alternative, infringement of the           16 December 1991 establishing an association between
     obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC so              the European Communities and their Member States and
     far as Article 1(2) of the contested decision is concerned              the Republic of Poland preclude the application — to
     (rejection of the remainder of the application for remission            Polish nationals — of national law according to which
     of import duties): although the Commission is correct in                posts for foreign-language assistants may be filled by
     stating that the party concerned has extensive professional             means of employment contracts of limited duration where-
     experience in the agricultural products sector, the Com-                as, for other teaching staff performing special duties,
     mission errs in its view that it ought to have been obvious             recourse to such contracts must be individually justified by
     to that party that neither the authorisation for inward                 an objective reason?
     processing nor the Community legislation published and
     in force allows wheat to be used in place of maize for the
     manufacture of glucose exported by that party. In finding           2. If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
     at the same time that the competent customs authorities                 affirmative:
     had not raised a single objection against the transactions
     of the party concerned, even though these had been carried              Does Article 37(1) of the Europe Agreement also preclude
     out for many years, the Commission imposed more                         the application of national law where the employment
     stringent requirements on the party concerned than those                contract of limited duration was concluded before the
     which could have been imposed by the competent auth-                    Europe Agreement entered into force and the agreed
     orities. Furthermore, the Commission fails to take account              period comes to an end after its entry into force?
     of the fact that it has also been known to take the view
     that equivalence may be authorised between two products
     which do not satisfy the equivalence criteria.
     The Commission has expressly determined that there was
     no question of manipulation on the part of the party
     concerned and that the financial advantage is attributable
     to price fluctuations under which the procedure followed
     by the party concerned might just as easily have resulted
     in a financial loss. That procedure resulted in a total
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht,
     customs debt of NLG 17 491 244,45, while the intended
                                                                         Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany, by order of that
     surplus (profit) during the period in question came to
                                                                         court of 14 April 2000 in the case of Ferring Arzneimittel
     NLG 710 700. Under those circumstances and those
                                                                                GmbH v Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH
     already pointed out, it would be disproportionate not to
     proceed with remission of the customs debt in so far as
     that debt is higher than the advantage obtained by the                                     (Case C-172/00)
     party concerned.
                                                                                (2000/C 211/11)
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
    down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
    (EEC) No 2913/92, as last amended by Regulation (EEC)                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    No 1662/99 (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).                                    European Communities by an order of the Landgericht
(2) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.                                                 (Regional Court), Cologne, of 14 April 2000, which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 10 May 2000, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Ferring Arzneimittel GmbH v
                                                                         Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH, on the following questions:


title: Case C-5/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (Copyright — Information society — Directive 2001/29/EC — Articles 2 and 5 — Literary and artistic works — Concept of reproduction — Reproduction in part — Reproduction of short extracts of literary works — Newspaper articles — Temporary and transient reproductions — Technological process consisting in scanning of articles followed by conversion into text file, electronic processing of the reproduction, storage of part of that reproduction and printing out)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening
   (Case C-5/08) (1)

   (Copyright - Information society - Directive 2001/29/EC - Articles 2 and 5 - Literary and artistic works - Concept of ‘reproduction’ - Reproduction ‘in part’ - Reproduction of short extracts of literary works - Newspaper articles - Temporary and transient reproductions - Technological process consisting in scanning of articles followed by conversion into text file, electronic processing of the reproduction, storage of part of that reproduction and printing out)
   2009/C 220/10
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Infopaq International A/S

      Defendant: Danske Dagblades Forening

      Re:

   Preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5(1) and (5) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10) — Company the principal activity of which consists in drawing up summaries of newspaper articles by means of scanning — Storage of an extract from an article consisting of a search word and the five words both preceding and following it — Temporary acts of reproduction

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               An act occurring during a data capture process, which consists of storing an extract of a protected work comprising 11 words and printing out that extract, is such as to come within the concept of reproduction in part within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, if the elements thus reproduced are the expression of the intellectual creation of their author; it is for the national court to make this determination;

               2.

               The act of printing out an extract of 11 words, during a data capture process such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not fulfil the condition of being transient in nature as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and, therefore, that process cannot be carried out without the consent of the relevant rightholders.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 February 2000 in Case C-202/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam): Fitzwilliam Executive Search Ltd, trading under the name of "Fitzwilliam Technical Services (FTS)" v Bestuur van het Landelĳk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen (Social security for migrant workers — Determination of the legislation applicable — Temporary workers posted to another Member State)

text:
29.4.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 122/3
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    2. An undertaking engaged in providing temporary personnel
                                                                                normally carries on its activities in the Member State in which it
                                                                                is established if it habitually carries on significant activities in
                         of 10 February 2000                                     that State.
                                                                            3. Article 11(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council
in Case C-202/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                        of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam): Fitzwil-                             Regulation No 1408/71, in the version codified by Regulation
liam Executive Search Ltd, trading under the name of                             No 2001/83 and as updated at the time of the events in
‘Fitzwilliam Technical Services (FTS)’ v Bestuur van het                         question, is to be interpreted as meaning that a certificate issued
         Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen (1)                           by the institution designated by the competent authority of a
                                                                                Member State is binding on the social security institutions of
(Social security for migrant workers — Determination of                          other Member States in so far as it certifies that workers posted
the legislation applicable — Temporary workers posted to                         by an undertaking providing temporary personnel are covered by
                        another Member State)                                    the social security system of the Member State in which that
                                                                                undertaking is established. However, where the institutions of
                                                                                other Member States raise doubts as to the correctness of the
                            (2000/C 122/04)                                      facts on which the certificate is based or as to the legal assessment
                                                                                of those facts and, consequently, as to the conformity of
                                                                                the information contained in the certificate with Regulation
                                                                                No 1408/71 and in particular with Article 14(1)(a) thereof,
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                              the issuing institution must re-examine the grounds on which
                                                                                the certificate was issued and, where appropriate, withdraw it.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-202/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-
rechtbank te Amsterdam, (Netherlands) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Fitzwilliam Executive Search Ltd, trading under the name of                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
‘Fitzwilliam Technical Services (FTS)’ and Bestuur van het
Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen — on the interpret-                                        of 15 February 2000
ation of Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
                                                                            in Case C-34/98: Commission of the European Communi-
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
persons and to members of their families moving within the
Community and of Article 11(1) (a) of Regulation (EEC)
No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 laying down the                      (Social security — Financing — Legislation applicable)
procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, in the
versions codified by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of                                             (2000/C 122/05)
2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) and as updated at the
time of the events in question — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,                                    (Language of the case: French)
L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kap-
teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and
M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment                                 in the European Court Reports)
on 10 February 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            In Case C-34/98: Commission of the European Communities
1. Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the                   (Agents: P Hillenkamp and H. Michard) v French Republic
     Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security          (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance) — application
     schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to           for a declaration that, by applying the social debt repayment
     members of their families moving within the Community, in the          contribution to the employment income and substitute income
     version codified by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of             of employed and self-employed persons resident in France but
     2 June 1983, and as updated at the time of the events in               working in another Member State who, by virtue of Council
     question, is to be interpreted as meaning that, in order to benefit    Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the appli-
     from the advantage afforded by that provision, an undertaking          cation of social security schemes to employed persons, to
     engaged in providing temporary personnel which, from one               self-employed persons and to members of their families
     Member State, makes workers available on a temporary basis to          moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
     undertakings based in another Member State must normally               Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ
     carry on its activities in the first State.                            1997 L 28, p. 1), are not subject to French social security


title: Case T-181/02: Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber Extended Composition) of 22 May 2007 — Neue Erba Lautex v Commission

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber Extended Composition) of 22 May 2007 — Neue Erba Lautex v Commission
   (Case T-181/02) (1)

   (2007/C 183/78)

      Language of the case: German

   The President of the Court of First Instance First Chamber Extended Composition Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 24.8.2002.


title: Case C-481/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Domenico Buttiglione and Others against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies

text:
7.4.2001               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 108/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that                  Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by judgments of
court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Domenico Buttiglione                that court of 6 July 2000 in the cases of Aziende Agricole
and Others against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel              Ettore Raffa and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli
Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of Agricul-                    Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry
               tural, Food and Forestry Policies                        of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-482/00);
                                                                        Azienda Agricola Gonal di Gonzato Simone e Stefano
                                                                        (C-497/00), Azienda Agricola Gianluigi Cerati and Maria
                        (Case C-481/00)                                 Ceriali s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the
                                                                        Budget and Planning (Case C-498/00), and Musini Nicolò
                                                                        Giovanni Maria v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury,
                        (2001/C 108/04)                                           the Budget and Planning (Case C-499/00)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 6 July 2000 of the
                                                                            (Cases C-482/00, C-497/00, C-498/00 and C-499/00)
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
ruling in Case C-481/00 Domenico Buttiglione and Others
against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
(AIMA) and the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry                                      (2001/C 108/05)
Policies, on the following questions:
(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                 References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December             European Communities by judgments of 6 July 2000 of the
     P92 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                  Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as              the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or         ruling in the cases of Aziende Agricole Ettore Raffa and Others
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate           v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of              (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?                Planning (Case C-482/00); Azienda Agricola Gonal di Gonzato
                                                                        Simone e Stefano (C-497/00), Azienda Agricola Gianluigi
                                                                        Cerati and Maria Ceriali s.s. v AIMA and the Ministry of the
If not:                                                                 Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-498/00), and
                                                                        Musini Nicolò Giovanni Maria v AIMA and the Ministry of the
                                                                        Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-499/00) on the
(2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                 following questions:
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of             (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not               Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     provide that derogations may be made from the periods                    1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of                     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies              meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
     in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those                judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
     provisions?                                                              from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
                                                                              quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?
(3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
     as permitting Member States to determine privileged
     categories of producers who must be compensated in
     priority to others, in particular by placing the ‘disadvan-        If not,
     taged areas’ in a secondary position in relation to
     mountain areas?
                                                                        (2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
                                                                              Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
                                                                              1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
(1) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.                                               (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
(2) OJ L 57, 10.3.1993, p. 12.                                                Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
                                                                              provide that derogations may be made from the periods
                                                                              prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
                                                                              individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
                                                                              in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
                                                                              provisions?


title: Case T-389/05: Action brought on  20 October 2005  — Ole Eistrup v European Parliament

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/26

         Action brought on 20 October 2005 — Ole Eistrup v European Parliament
   (Case T-389/05)
   (2006/C 10/52)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Ole Eistrup (Knebel, Denmark) (represented by: S. E. Hjelmborg, advokat)

      Defendant(s): European Parliament
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant's decision of 13 December 2004 and the defendant's reply of 12 July 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant compensation in the amount of EUR 203 357 for lost earnings in the period 1 June 1998 to 1 September 2002, together with interest;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant EUR 200 000 for non-material damage, together with interest;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who is employed in the Parliament's Danish language translation division, wished to be reinstated in his post after taking leave on personal grounds from 1 August 1992 to 31 July 1996. This only became possible however from 1 October 2002, since the Parliament was not able to identify an available post corresponding to the applicant's category and qualifications before that date.
   In support of his application the applicant states that he has fulfilled his obligation to mitigate his loss in connection with his claim for reimbursement of lost earnings.
   The applicant also claims that the defendant's alleged unlawful handling of the matter put the applicant in a state of uncertainty and anxiety, and that the defendant's conduct constitutes a clear breach of the applicant's rights and the confidence which every citizen must have in the Community's legal system.


title: Case F-16/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Behmer v European Parliament (Officials — Procedure for the award of merit points at the European Parliament — Infringement of the obligation to state reasons — Statement of reasons given in the course of the procedure)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/35

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2009 — Behmer v European Parliament
   (Case F-16/08) (1)

   (Officials - Procedure for the award of merit points at the European Parliament - Infringement of the obligation to state reasons - Statement of reasons given in the course of the procedure)
   2009/C 297/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Joachim Behmer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and R. Ignătescu, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision to award the applicant two merit points for the years 2004 and 2006.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Declares that it is not necessary to rule on the action in so far as it is directed against the decision of the European Parliament of 4 June 2007 awarding Mr Behmer two merit points in respect of the year 2004;

               2.

               annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 26 June 2007 awarding Mr Behmer two merit points in respect of the year 2006;

               3.

               orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by Mr Behmer;

               4.

               orders Mr Behmer to bear one half of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 116, of 09.05.2008 p. 32.


title: Case C-240/04: Action brought on 8 June 2004 against the Kingdom of Belgium by the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/13

         Action brought on 8 June 2004 against the Kingdom of Belgium by the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-240/04)
   (2004/C 190/21)
   An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Shotter, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Kingdom of Belgium.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by not taking the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures necessary to comply with:

                           —

                           Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (‘Access Directive’); (1)

                           —

                           Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (‘Authorisation Directive’); (2)

                           —

                           Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (‘Framework Directive’); (3)

                           —

                           Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’); (4)

                     or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of the Access Directive, Article 18 of the Authorisation Directive, Article 28 of the Framework Directive and Article 38 of the Universal Service Directive.

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and principal arguments:
   The time-limit given for transposition of the directives was 24 July 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 7.

      (2)  OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 21.

      (3)  OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 33.

      (4)  OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 51.


title: Case T-71/10: Action brought on 18 February 2010 — Xeda International and Pace International v Commission

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/62

         Action brought on 18 February 2010 — Xeda International and Pace International v Commission
   (Case T-71/10)
   2010/C 100/92
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Xeda International (Saint Andiol, France) and Pace International LLC (Seattle, United States of America) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings,

               —

               take such other further measures as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of their application, the applicants seek the annulment of Commission’s decision No 2009/859/EC of 30 November 2009 concerning the non-inclusion of diphenylamine in Annex I to Council directive No 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance [notified under number C(2009) 9262] (OJ 2009 L 314, p. 79).
   The applicants claim that, as a result of the contested decision, the first applicant will no longer be allowed to sell diphenylamine and diphenylamine-based products in the European Union and will lose its product registrations in the Member States effective as of 30 May 2010.
   The applicants submit that the contested decision is unlawful because it is based on an underlying assessment of diphenylamine that is scientifically and legally flawed. According to the applicants, it infringes the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and secondary EU legislation.
   In summary, the applicants contend that the contested decision bans the use of diphenylamine in plant protection products on the basis of three scientific concerns mentioned in recital 5 thereof, each of which was either adequately addressed by the applicants or was not a concern justifying non-inclusion.
   Further, the applicants claim that the Commission infringed the applicants’ right of defence inasmuch as it prevented them from relying on the possibility to withdraw and re-submit a new dossier while benefiting from a longer phase-out period, as it was the case for other substances belonging to the same regulatory process.


title: Case C-266/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (The Netherlands) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Vereniging Milieudefensie, Vereniging Goede Waar & Co. v College voor het toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, other parties: Bayer CropScience BV and Nederlandse Stichting voor Fytofarmacie

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (The Netherlands) lodged on 10 June 2009 — Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Vereniging Milieudefensie, Vereniging Goede Waar & Co. v College voor het toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden, other parties: Bayer CropScience BV and Nederlandse Stichting voor Fytofarmacie
   (Case C-266/09)
   2009/C 267/47
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

               Applicants

               :

                           Stichting Natuur en Milieu

                           Vereniging Milieudefensie

                           Vereniging Goede Waar & Co

               Defendants

               :

               College voor het toelating van gewasbeschermingsmiddelen en biociden

               Other parties

               :

                           Bayer CropScience BV

                           Nederlandse Stichting voor Fytofarmacie

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the term ‘environmental information’ in Article 2 of Directive 2003/4/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it includes information submitted within the framework of a national procedure for the authorisation, or the extension of the authorisation, of a plant protection product with a view to setting the maximum quantity of a pesticide, a component thereof or reaction products which may be present in food or beverages?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, what is the relationship between Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC (2) and Directive 2003/4/EC in so far as it is relevant to application to information as defined in the previous question, and specifically, is that relationship such that Article 14 of Directive 91/414/EEC may be applied only if such application does not detract from the obligations laid down in Article 4(2) of Directive 2003/4/EC?

               3.

               If it follows from the answers to the first and second questions above that the defendant is bound in the present case to apply Article 4 of Directive 2003/4/EC, does Article 4 of that directive mean that the weighing prescribed in that provision of the general interest served by disclosure against the specific interest served by the refusal to disclose should take place at application level or that it may be effected in national legislation?

      (1)  Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).

      (2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1)


title: Case C-516/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Dimensione Direct Sales Srl, Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Copyright — Directive 2001/29/EC — Article 4(1) — Distribution right — Concept of ‘distribution to the public’ — Offer for sale and advertising by a trader of a Member State on its website, by direct mail and in the press in another Member State — Reproductions of protected furniture for sale without the consent of the holder of the exclusive distribution right — Offer or advertising not leading to the purchase of the original or copies of a protected work)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Dimensione Direct Sales Srl, Michele Labianca v Knoll International SpA
   (Case C-516/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Copyright - Directive 2001/29/EC - Article 4(1) - Distribution right - Concept of ‘distribution to the public’ - Offer for sale and advertising by a trader of a Member State on its website, by direct mail and in the press in another Member State - Reproductions of protected furniture for sale without the consent of the holder of the exclusive distribution right - Offer or advertising not leading to the purchase of the original or copies of a protected work))
   (2015/C 236/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Dimensione Direct Sales Srl, Michele Labianca

      Defendant: Knoll International SpA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that it allows a holder of an exclusive right to distribute a protected work to prevent an offer for sale or a targeted advertisement of the original or a copy of that work, even if it is not established that that advertisement gave rise to the purchase of the protected work by an EU buyer, in so far as that advertisement invites consumers of the Member State in which that work is protected by copyright to purchase it.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case F-59/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Kerstens v Commission of the European Communities (Career development report — 2004 appraisal procedure — Infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Infringement of the GIP of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/42

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 25 April 2007 — Kerstens v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-59/06) (1)

   (Career development report - 2004 appraisal procedure - Infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Infringement of the GIP of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations)
   (2007/C 96/87)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Petrus Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Herrmann and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment, first, of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 11 July 2005 adopting the applicant's CDE for 2004 and, second, of the express decision of the Appointing Authority of 6 February 2006 dismissing the applicant's complaint No R/769/05.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006, p. 34.


title: Appeal brought on 27 November 1995 by (1) Blackspur DIY Ltd, (2) Steven Kellar, (3) J. M. A. Glancy, (4) Ronald Cohen against the judgment delivered on 18 September 1995 by the First Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-168/94 between (1) Blackspur DIY Ltd, (2) Steven Kellar, (3) J. M. A. Glancy, (4) Ronald Cohen and (1) Council of the European Union, (2) Commission of the European Communities (Case C-362/95 P)

text:
No C 16/8             | EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20 . 1 . 96
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with                 failed to give any consideration at all to one of the
those of Case C-360/95 (2 ). The time limit for transposition          appellants' claims.
expired on 31 December 1993 .
                                                                       In particular, in relation to the matters of fact found by the
f 1 ) OJ No L 228 , 11 . 8 . 1992 , p . 1 .                            Court of First Instance in its judgment, the appellants'
( 2 ) See page 7 of this Official Journal .                            appeal is based on the errors of law committed by the Court
                                                                       of First Instance in that connection — the obvious
                                                                       substantive inaccuracy of findings, the misuse of evidence,
                                                                       the failure to apply properly the rules and principles relating
                                                                       to the burden of proof.
Appeal brought on 27 November 1995 by ( 1 ) Blackspur
DIY Ltd, ( 2 ) Steven Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M. A. Glancy, (4 ) Ronald       The appellants contend that underlying the Court of First
Cohen against the judgment delivered on 18 September                   Instance's judgment was a basic error ( or series of errors ) of
1995 by the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the              law concerning the correct legal test of causation.
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Case T-168/94 (') between ( 1 ) Blackspur DIY Ltd, (2 )                H OJ No C 286, p . 13 .
Steven Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M. A. Glancy, (4 ) Ronald Cohen and ( 1 )
Council of the European Union, ( 2 ) Commission of the
                      European Communities
                         ( Case C-362/95 P                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                             ( 96/C 16/16                              circondariale di Roma — Sezione distaccata di Tivoli by
                                                                       order of that court of 8 November 1995 in criminal
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 September                          proceedings against Giuseppe Tancredi
1995 by the First Chamber ( extended composition ) of the                                       Case C-363/95 )
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                                             ( 96/C 16/17)
Case T-168/94 between ( 1 ) Blackspur DIY Ltd, ( 2 ) Steven
Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M. A. Glancy, ( 4 ) Ronald Cohen and ( 1 )            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Council of the European Union, ( 2 ) Commission of the                 European Communities by order of the Pretura
European Communities, was brought before the Court of                  circondariale di Roma — Sezione distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome
Justice of the European Communities on 27 November                     District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of 8 November
1995 by ( 1 ) Blackspur DIY Ltd, ( 2 ) Steven Kellar, ( 3 ) J. M.      1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
A. Glancy, (4 ) Ronald Cohen, represented by K. P. E. Lasok,           27 November 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in criminal
QC, instructed by Charles Khan of Berg & Co., Solicitors,              proceedings against Giuseppe Tancredi .
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Maria Dennewald, 12, avenue de la Porte Neuve .                     The questions referred by the Pretura circondariale di Roma
                                                                       — Sezione distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice for a
The appellants request the Court to order that:                        preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case
                                                                       C-58/95 ( M.
( a ) the decision of the Court of First Instance be set
       aside;                                                          (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .
( b ) the case be remitted to the Court of First Instance;
        and
(c ) the Council and the Commission pay the Appellants'                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
       costs .
                                                                       Hamburg by orders of 22 September 1995 and
                                                                       27 September 1995 in the cases of Firma T. Port GmbH &
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
The appellants submit that the judgment of the Court of                               ( Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95 )
First Instance is vitiated by errors of law. These errors of law                                   ( 96/C 16/18 )
comprise infringement of the Appellants' right to a fair trial,
as understood in the context of Article 6 of the Convention
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental                     European Communities by orders of the Joint Senate of the
Freedoms, the rights of defence and general principles of              Finanzgericht Hamburg ( Finance Court, Hamburg) for
 Community law.                                                        the Länder of the Free Hanseatic City of Hamburg,
The appellants did not benefit from a fair trial for various           Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein, Fourth Senate, of
 reasons : the Court of First Instance's judgment is riddled           22 September and 27 September 1995 , which were received
with suggestio falsi and suppressio veri in relation both to           at the Court Registry on 16 November 1995 , for a
 the nature of the appellants' case and the evidence and               preliminary ruling in the case of Firma T. Port GmbH
 sources of evidence available to the Court of First Instance;          & Co. v. Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office )
 the Court of First Instance misused the evidence before it            Hamburg-Jonas on the first, second and third questions in
 and refrained from ordering measures of enquiry even                   Case C- 1 82/95 ( M.
 though it was appropriate to do so; the Court of First
                                                                        0 ) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 12 .
 Instance failed to give any or any sufficient reasons for a
 number of its conclusions; and the Court of First Instance


title: Case T-342/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — CEEES and Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish service station market — Decision dismissing a complaint — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Failure to fulfil obligations made compulsory by a Commission decision — Reopening of the proceedings — Fines — Periodic penalty payments)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2014 — CEEES and Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio v Commission
   (Case T-342/11) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish service station market - Decision dismissing a complaint - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Failure to fulfil obligations made compulsory by a Commission decision - Reopening of the proceedings - Fines - Periodic penalty payments)
   2014/C 78/14
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio (CEEES) (Madrid, Spain) and Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio (Madrid) (represented by: A. Hernández Pardo and B. Marín Corral, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially M. Muñoz Pérez, then S. Centeno Huerta, and finally A. Rubio González, Abogados del Estado) and Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, S.A. (represented by: J. Jiménez-Laiglesia Oñate and S. Rivero Mena, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2011) 2994 final of 28 April 2011 dismissing the complaint brought by the applicants regarding infringements of the competition rules committed by Repsol (Case COMP/39.461).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Confederación Española de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio (CEEES) and the Asociación de Gestores de Estaciones de Servicio to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos, S.A. to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 May 2003 in Case C-15/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten ): Paranova Läkemedel AB and Others v Läkemedelsverket (Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC — Medicinal products — Withdrawal of parallel import licence in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product of reference by the holder of that authorisation)

text:
21.6.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 146/5
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                            of 8 May 2003
                                                                                of 8 May 2003
in Case C-438/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberlandesgericht Hamm): Deutscher Handballbund
                       eV v Maros Kolpak ( 1)                                in Case C-15/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Regeringsrätten ): Paranova Läkemedel AB and Others
(External relations — Association Agreement between the                                            v Läkemedelsverket (1)
Communities and Slovakia — Article 38(1) — Free move-
ment of workers — Principle of non-discrimination —
Handball — Limitation on the number of professional                          (Interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC —
players having the nationality of non-member countries who                   Medicinal products — Withdrawal of parallel import licence
    may play on a team in the league of a sports federation)                 in consequence of waiver of the marketing authorisation for
                                                                             the medicinal product of reference by the holder of that
                           (2003/C 146/07)                                                               authorisation)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (2003/C 146/08)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               (Language of the case: Swedish)
In Case C-438/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
by the Oberlandesgericht Hamm (Germany) for a preliminary                                        in the European Court Reports)
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Deutscher Handballbund eV and Maros Kolpak, on the
interpretation of Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement
establishing an association between the European Communi-
ties and their Member States, of the one part, and the Slovak                In Case C-15/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Republic, of the other part, approved on behalf of the                       by the Regeringsträtten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
Communities by Decision 94/909/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of the                     the proceedings pending before that court between Paranova
Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994 (OJ 1994                      Läkemedel AB, Farmagon A/S, Medartuum AB, Net Pharma
L 359, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                        KG AB, Orifarm AB, Trans Euro Medical AB, Cross Pharma
D. A. O. Edward, acting for the President of the Chamber,                    AB, MedImport Scandinavia AB and Läkemedelsverket on the
A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas,               interpretation of Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC, the Court
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal               (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric
8 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                                           and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
                                                                             General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
The first indent of Article 38(1) of the Europe Agreement establishing       has given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it has ruled:
an association between the European Communities and their Member
States, of the one part, and the Slovak Republic, of the other part,
signed in Luxembourg on 4 October 1993 and approved on behalf                Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC preclude national legislation under
of the Communities by Decision 94/909/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of                  which the withdrawal, at the request of its holder, of the marketing
the Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994, must be                  authorisation of reference of itself entails the withdrawal of the
construed as precluding the application to a professional sportsman          parallel import licence granted for the medicinal product in question.
of Slovak nationality, who is lawfully employed by a club established        However, those provisions do not preclude restrictions on parallel
in a Member State, of a rule drawn up by a sports federation in that         imports of the medicinal product in question if there is in fact a risk
State under which clubs are authorised to field, during league or cup        to the health of humans as a result of the continued existence of that
matches, only a limited number of players from non-member                    medicinal product on the market of the importing Member State.
countries that are not parties to the Agreement on the European
Economic Area.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
( 1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.


title: Removal from the register of Case T-124/93

text:
25 . 3 . 95         | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 74/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Removal from the register of Case T-248/94 ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/35 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case T-20/94 .                                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-248/94 : Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
Action brought on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian
Jacobsen against Council of the European Union and                    (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
         Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-24/95 )
                           ( 95/C 74/33 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-249/94 ( )
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/36 )
An action against the Council of the European Union and                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Communities on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Jacobsen, Jarplund-Weding ( Federal Republic of Germany),             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
represented by Dr. Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,                 T-249/94: Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             Communities .
of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains.
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the defendants to pay compensation to the
     applicant for the period of five milk years from 1 April
     1988 in the amount of DM 24 540, together with                          Removal from the register of Case T-250/94 ( )
     interest of 8% from 17 December 1983 .                                                       ( 95/C 74/37 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-20/94 .
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-250/94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case T-l 24/93 ( )
                            ( 95/C 74/34 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-251/94 ( x )
               (Language of the case: German)                                                     ( 95/C 74/38 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 20 January 1995 the President of the First
Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First                  By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-l 24/9 3 : Georg Werner v.                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Commission of the European Communities .                              T-251 /94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
 (M OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 .
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Case T-387/15: Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (J AND JOY)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/45

         Action brought on 15 July 2015 — J & Joy v OHIM — Joy-Sportswear (J AND JOY)
   (Case T-387/15)
   (2015/C 381/54)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: J & Joy SA (Waremme, Belgium) (represented by: A. Maqua and C. Pirenne, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joy-Sportswear GmbH (Ottensoos, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘J AND JOY’ — Application for registration No 11 409 935

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 22 April 2015 in Case R 1352/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests the Office:

               —

               to review the division opposition judgment and declare the opposition inadmissible;

               —

               to order the opponent to bear the costs and applicant’s fees in the opposition proceedings on the basis of article 81 CTM Regulation.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-573/14: Action brought on 31 July 2014 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF v Commission

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/45

         Action brought on 31 July 2014 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and SNF v Commission
   (Case T-573/14)
   2014/C 409/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group (Brussels, Belgium) and SNF SAS (Andrézieux Bouthéon, France) (represented by: R. Cana and A. Patsa, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the contested act because it lays down an invariable concentration limit of 100 ppm for residual monomers;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicants seek the annulment, in part, of Commission Decision 2014/256/EU of 2 May 2014 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for converted paper products (1).
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the EU Ecolabel Regulation (2) as the Commission has laid down an invariable concentration limit of 100 ppm for residual monomers under Section (e) of Criterion 1(B)(B3) of the annex to the contested decision. The applicants submit that the requirements laid down in the said section:

                           —

                           infringe Article 6(3) of and Annex I to the EU Ecolabel Regulation as they are not determined on a scientific basis;

                           —

                           infringe Article 6(1) of and Annex I to the EU Ecolabel Regulation as they do not take into account the latest strategic objectives of the EU in the environmental field;

                           —

                           infringe Article 6(3)(b) of the EU Ecolabel Regulation as their feasibility has not been considered by the Commission.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty to state reasons and the principles of equality and proportionality as the contested decision:

                           —

                           contains no indication or explanation as to the requirements laid down in Section (e) of Criterion 1(B)(B3);

                           —

                           treats both different situations equally and equal situations differently without such discrimination being objectively justified;

                           —

                           is not necessary to attain the objectives that are pursued and less onerous measures exist.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the Commission’s duty of good administration as it has not examined carefully and impartially all the relevant factors and circumstances when adopting the contested decision.

      (1)  OJ 2014 L 135, p. 24. Notified under document C(2014) 2774.

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (OJ 2010 L 27, p. 1).


title: Case T-531/12: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2014  — Tifosi Optics v OHIM — Tom Tailor (T) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark T — Earlier Community figurative mark T — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2014 — Tifosi Optics v OHIM — Tom Tailor (T)
   (Case T-531/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark T - Earlier Community figurative mark T - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2014/C 409/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tifosi Optics, Inc. (Watkinsville, United States) (represented initially by A. Tornato and D. Hazan, and subsequently by R. Gilbey, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Tom Tailor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: O. Gillert, K. Vanden Bossche and B. Köhn-Gerdes, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2012 (Case R 729/2011-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Tom Tailor GmbH and Tifosi Optics, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action.

               2)

               Orders Tifosi Optics, Inc. to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Tom Tailor GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.


title: Case C-168/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Milena Tomášová v Slovakia Republic — Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR, Pohotovosť s. r. o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Credit agreement containing an unfair term — Enforcement of an arbitration award in accordance with that term — Member State liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of EU law attributable to a national court — Conditions of engagement — Existence of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law)

text:
               26.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Prešov — Slovakia) — Milena Tomášová v Slovakia Republic — Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR, Pohotovosť s. r. o.
   (Case C-168/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Credit agreement containing an unfair term - Enforcement of an arbitration award in accordance with that term - Member State liability for damage caused to individuals by breaches of EU law attributable to a national court - Conditions of engagement - Existence of a sufficiently serious breach of EU law))
   (2016/C 350/09)
   Language of the case: Slovakian

      Referring court

   Okresný súd Prešov

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Milena Tomášová

      Defendants: Slovakia Republic — Ministerstvo spravodlivosti SR, Pohotovosť s. r. o.

      Intervening parties: Združenie na ochranu občana spotrebiteľa HOOS

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Member State liability for damage caused to individuals as a result of a breach of EU law by a decision of a national court may be incurred only where that decision is made by a court of that Member State adjudicating at last instance, which it is for the referring court to determine in respect of the main proceedings. If that is the case, a decision by that national court adjudicating at last instance may constitute a sufficiently serious breach of EU law, capable of giving rise to that liability, only where, by that decision, that court manifestly infringed the applicable law or where that infringement takes place despite the existence of well-established Court case-law on the matter.
               It cannot be concluded that a national court which, prior to the judgment of 4 June 2009 in Pannon GSM (C-243/08, EU:C:2009:350), failed, in the context of proceedings for enforcement of an arbitral award upholding a claim for payment of debts under a contractual term which must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, to assess of its own motion whether that term is unfair, although it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that purpose, manifestly disregarded the Court’s case-law on the matter and, therefore, committed a sufficiently serious breach of EU law.

               2.

               The rules regarding reparation for damage caused by a breach of EU law, such as those concerning the assessment of such damage or the relationship between a claim for that reparation and other remedies which could be available, are determined by the national law of each Member State, in conformity with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case F-77/15: Action brought on 18 May 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/51

         Action brought on 18 May 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-77/15)
   (2015/C 245/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision to limit the retroactive payment of the expatriation allowance to a period of five years, from the date on which the failure to pay that allowance was discovered and an order against the defendant to pay default interest.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) to limit the payment of the expatriation allowance, which had been wrongly omitted since 1 September 2007, to a period of five years;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the expatriation allowances that he has been entitled to since 1 September 2007 plus default interest calculated at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points on the sums already paid to the applicant by way of arrears of remuneration (expatriation allowance) and on those sums still due, from their respective due date until full payment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-586/11 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by Regione Puglia against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2011 in Case T-84/10 Regione Puglia v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/40

      Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by Regione Puglia against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 14 September 2011 in Case T-84/10 Regione Puglia v Commission
      (Case C-586/11 P)
      (2012/C 25/75)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Parties

         Appellant: Regione Puglia (represented by: F. Brunelli and A. Aloia, avvocati)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Set aside the order made on 14 September 2011 by the General Court, notified to the appellant on 15 September 2011, declaring that the action in Case T-84/10 is inadmissible;

                  —

                  Accordingly, analyse the substance of the case and, consequently, annul Decision C(2009) 10350 of the European Commission of 22 December 2009 concerning ‘the lifting of the suspension of interim payments from the European Regional Development Fund relating to the programme to which this decision refers’, confirming the validity and applicability only of the provision made in Article 4;

                  —

                  Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The appellant alleges, first, procedural irregularities in the proceedings before the court at first instance, which were seriously detrimental to the appellant, namely the omission of the oral procedure provided for in Article 114(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.
      Second, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed Community law, first, by misinterpreting the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, (1) in conjunction with Article 4(2) and (3) TFEU and Article 5(3) TFEU, and, second, failing to state adequate grounds for its findings, in breach of Article 81 of its Rules of Procedure.

         (1)  OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1.


13.10.2001            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 289/21
       Removal from the register of Case C-406/00 (1)                the register of Case C-26/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v French Republic.
                       (2001/C 289/51)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
By order of 11 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-406/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-27/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/54)
                                                                     By order of 13 July 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
       Removal from the register of Case C-410/00 (1)                the register of Case C-27/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                       (2001/C 289/52)
By order of 30 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-410/00: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-105/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/55)
                                                                     By order of 28 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case    C-26/01 (1)              of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                     the register of Case C-105/01: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 289/53)                               ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): André van der
                                                                     Plas v Wouter Guis.
By order of 19 June 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.


title: Case T-347/16: Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Inox Mare v Commission

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/38

         Action brought on 29 June 2016 — Inox Mare v Commission
   (Case T-347/16)
   (2016/C 296/48)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Inox Mare Srl (Rimini, Italy) (represented by: R. Holzeisen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should annul Commission Decision C(2015) 9672 final of 6 January 2016 finding that repayment of import duties is not justified in a particular case (REM 02/14) and order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in the present case is the follow-up to the decision contested in Case T-289/16, Inox Mare v Commission.
   In support of its action, the applicant claims that the contested measure is unlawful as a result of the serious irregularities in the related investigation procedure conducted by OLAF and concluded by the Final Report contested in Case T-289/16, as cited above.
   In concrete terms, the contested measure is vitiated by:

               —

               Infringement and incorrect application of the Community legislation on the anti-dumping duty.

               —

               Infringement and incorrect application of the Philippine and Community legislation on the duty, conferred on the Philippine customs authorities, to verify the origins of goods certified by those authorities.

               —

               Infringement and incorrect application of Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

         Therefore, in its heads of claim the applicant seeks annulment of the contested decision for infringement of the Treaties and the rules of law relating to their application and for infringement of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 41 thereof.


title: Judgment of the Court of 17 May 2001 in Case C-449/98 P: International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) v Commission of the European Communities and Others (Appeal — Decision rejecting complaint — Competition — Postal services — Remail)

text:
C 200/18                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       14.7.2001
—     the finance company gives an undertaking to the purchaser that        1.   Dismisses the appeal;
      it will pay to the seller on the purchaser’s behalf the sales price
      advertised and invoiced by the seller;                                2.   Orders International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) to pay
                                                                                the costs.
—     the finance company in fact pays to the seller, pursuant to
      agreements concluded with the seller but of which the purchaser
      is unaware, a sum less than the price advertised and invoiced;        (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
      and
—     the purchaser repays to the finance company a sum equal to the
      price advertised and invoiced,
the taxable amount for purposes of calculating the value added tax
payable on that sale consists of the full amount payable by the
purchaser.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.                                                                          of 17 May 2001
                                                                            in Case C-450/98 P: International Express Carriers Confer-
                                                                            ence (IECC) v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                and Others (1)
                                                                            (Appeal — Decision rejecting complaint — Abuse of a
                                                                                dominant position — Postal services — Remail)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (2001/C 200/32)
                           of 17 May 2001
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
in Case C-449/98 P: International Express Carriers Confer-
ence (IECC) v Commission of the European Communities                        In Case C-450/98 P: International Express Carriers Conference
                             and Others (1)                                 (IECC), established in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by
                                                                            E. Morgan de Rivery, J. Derenne and M. Cunningham, avocats,
(Appeal — Decision rejecting complaint — Competition —                      appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                     Postal services — Remail)                              of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended
                                                                            Composition) of 16 September 1998 in Joined Cases T-133/95
                                                                            and T-204/95 IECC v Comission [1998] ECR II-3645, seeking
                           (2001/C 200/31)                                  to have that judgment set aside in so far as it relates to Case T-
                                                                            204/95 and paragraphs 78 to 83 of Case T-133/95, the other
                                                                            parties to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
                    (Language of the case: English)                         Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner, assisted by N. Forwood),
                                                                            Deutsche Post AG (avocat: by D. Schroeder), United Kingdom
                                                                            of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, The Post Office and La
In Case C-449/98 P: International Express Carriers Conference               Poste, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
(IECC), established in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by                 President, A. La Pergola and M. Wathelet (Presidents of
E. Morgan de Rivery, J. Derenne and M. Cunningham, avocats                  Chambers), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, N. Colneric,
— appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges;
of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended                        D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Composition) of 16 September 1998 in Case T-110/95 IECC                     Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
v Commission [1998] ECR II-3605, seeking to have that                       17 May 2001, in which it:
judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings
being Commission of the European Communities, (Agents:                      1.   Dismisses the appeal;
K. Wiedner, assisted by N. Forwood), La Poste (avocat:
H. Lehman), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                    2.   Orders International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) to pay
Ireland, and The Post Office — the Court, composed of:                           the costs.
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, A. La Pergola and M. Wathe-
let (Presidents of Chambers), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón,
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporte-                   (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
ur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; D. Lou-
terman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 17 May 2001, in which it:


title: Case C-637/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 12 December 2011 — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 12 December 2011 — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-637/11)
   2012/C 49/29
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TVI Televisão Independente SA

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 16(1) of the CIVA [VAT Code], as interpreted in the judgment under appeal (to the effect that the commercial advertising screening tax is inherent in the supply of advertising services, so that it should be included in the taxable amount of the supply of services for the purposes of VAT), compatible with Article 11(A)(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EC (1) (now Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006) and, in particular, with the concept of ‘consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier for such supplies’?

               2.

               Is Article 16(6)(c) of the CIVA, as interpreted in the judgment under appeal (to the effect that the commercial advertising screening tax does not constitute an amount paid in the name and on behalf of the customer of the services, even though it is accounted for in third party suspense accounts and is intended to be paid to public bodies, so that it is not excluded from the taxable amount for the purposes of VAT) compatible with Article 11(A)(3)(c) of Directive 77/388/EC (now Article 79(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006) and, in particular, with the concept of ‘amounts received by a taxable person from his purchaser or customer as repayment for expenses paid out in the name and for the account of the latter and which are entered in his books in a suspense account’?

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

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).