title: Case C-440/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament (Action for annulment — Articles 31(1)(e) EU, 34 EU and 47 EU — Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA — Enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution — Criminal penalties — Community competence — Legal basis — Article 80(2) EC)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v European Parliament
   (Case C-440/05) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Articles 31(1)(e) EU, 34 EU and 47 EU - Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA - Enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution - Criminal penalties - Community competence - Legal basis - Article 80(2) EC)
   (2007/C 315/15)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Bogensberger and R. Troosters, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Gómez-Leal, J. Rodrigues and A. Auersperger Matić, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-C. Piris and J. Schutte, and by K. Michoel, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by M. Wimmer, Agent), Czech Republic (represented by T. Boček, Agent), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by J. Molde, Agent), Republic of Estonia (represented by L. Uibo, Agent), Hellenic Republic (represented by S. Chala and A. Samoni-Rantou, Agents), French Republic (represented by E. Belliard, G. de Bergues and S. Gasri, Agents), Ireland (represented by D. O'Hagan, E. Fitzsimons and N. Hyland, Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by E. Balode-Buraka and E. Broks, Agents), Republic of Lithuania (represented by D. Kriaučiūnas, Agent), Republic of Hungary (represented by P. Gottfried, Agent), Republic of Malta (represented by S. Camilleri, Agent, and P. Grech, Deputy Attorney General), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by H.G. Sevenster and M. de Grave, Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by C. Pesendorfer, Agent), Republic of Poland (represented by E Ośniecka-Tamecka, Agent), Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Fernandes and M.L. Duarte, Agents), Slovak Republic (represented by R. Procházka, Agent), Republic of Finland (represented by E. Bygglin, Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by K. Wistrand, Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by E. O'Neill, D.J. Rhee and D. Anderson, Agents),
   Re:
   Annulment of Council Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA of 12 July 2005 to strengthen the criminal-law framework for the enforcement of the law against ship source pollution (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 164)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA of 12 July 2005 to strengthen the criminal-law framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution;

               2)

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

               3)

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Republic of Estonia, the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic, Ireland, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and also the European Parliament to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ 2006 C 22.


title: Case F-34/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — De Loecker v EEAS (Civil service — EEAS staff — Temporary staff — Psychological harassment — Articles 12a and 24b of the Staff Regulations — Request for assistance — Rejection — Request to open an administrative investigation — Right to be heard — Infringement)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/96

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 December 2015 — De Loecker v EEAS
   (Case F-34/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - EEAS staff - Temporary staff - Psychological harassment - Articles 12a and 24b of the Staff Regulations - Request for assistance - Rejection - Request to open an administrative investigation - Right to be heard - Infringement))
   (2016/C 048/110)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Stéphane De Loecker (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision to reject the complaint of psychological harassment lodged by the applicant against the Chief Operating Officer of the EEAS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 14 April 2014 by which the European External Action Service rejected the request for assistance under Articles 12a and 24 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union made by Mr De Loecker;

               2.

               Orders the European External Action Service to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr De Loecker.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1/6/2015, p. 25.


title: Case T-272/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2014  — Max Mara Fashion Group v OHIM — Mackays Stores (M&Co.) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark M&Co. — Earlier Community and national figurative marks MAX&Co. — Earlier national word mark MAX&CO. — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 December 2014 — Max Mara Fashion Group v OHIM — Mackays Stores (M&Co.)
   (Case T-272/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark M&Co. - Earlier Community and national figurative marks MAX&Co. - Earlier national word mark MAX&CO. - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 026/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Max Mara Fashion Group Srl (Turin, Italy) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Mackays Stores Ltd (Renfrew, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Gould and K. Passmore, Solicitors, J. Baldwin, Barrister, and M. Howe QC)

      Re:

   Action for the annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 March 2013 (Case R 1199/2012-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Max Mara Fashion Group Srl and Mackays Stores Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Max Mara Fashion Group Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-561/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Georg Rolof, Markus Heimann v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 2 November 2015 — Georg Rolof, Markus Heimann v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-561/15)
   (2016/C 048/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Georg Rolof, Markus Heimann

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH
   The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 27 November 2015.


title: Case C-106/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court of 22 February 2001, in the case of The Queen on the application of Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd against the Licensing Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by the Medicines Control Agency), 1) Sangstat UK Ltd and 2) Imtix-Sangstat UK Ltd, interveners

text:
16.6.2001                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 173/23
Stato (Council of State), Italy for a preliminary ruling in the                    6/10 years ago, is a national competent authority ever
proceedings pending before that court between Questore                             entitled to cross-refer, without consent, to data submitted
Macerata v Claudio Peroni — on the interpretation of the                           in support of a product (B) which was authorised within
provisions of the EC Treaty concerning the freedom to                              the last 6/10 years?
provide services — the Court (Third Chamber), composed
of: C. Gulmann, (President of Chamber), J.-P. Puissochet
(Rapporteur), F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
General; R. Grass Registrar, has given an order on 15 December                2.   If so, may such cross-reference be made in circumstances
2000, in which it has ruled:                                                       where:
The EC Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services do not
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which              (a)   product B was authorised under the Article 4.8(a)
reserves to certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events if                  hybrid abridged procedure, referencing product A;
that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives intended               and
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions
which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those
objectives.
                                                                                (b) the data to which reference is made consists of
                                                                                clinical trials which the national competent auth-
                                                                                ority indicated would be necessary if the marketing
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                                authorisation was to be granted and which were
                                                                                submitted in order to demonstrate that product B,
                                                                                though suprabioavailable to product A when admin-
                                                                                istered in the same dose, is safe?
                                                                              3.    (a) Does the final sub-paragraph of Article 4.8(a) of
                                                                                Directive 65/65 (‘the proviso’) apply only to appli-
                                                                                cations made under Article 4.8(a)(iii) or to appli-
                                                                                cations made under Article 4.8(a)(i) also?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division), by order of that court
of 22 February 2001, in the case of The Queen on the                               (b) Is essential similarity a prerequisite for the use of the
application of Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd against                                   proviso?
the Licensing Authority established by the Medicines
Act 1968 (acting by the Medicines Control Agency),
1) Sangstat UK Ltd and 2) Imtix-Sangstat UK Ltd, inter-
                                  veners
                                                                              4.   Can products ever be essentially similar for the purposes
                                                                                of Article 4.8(a)(i) and (iii) of Directive 65/65 when they
                           (Case C-106/01)                                         are not bioequivalent, and if so in what circumstances?
                           (2001/C 173/39)
                                                                              5.   What is the meaning of the term pharmaceutical form, as
                                                                                used by the Court in its Judgment in Case C-368/96
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             Generics (2)? In particular, do two products have the same
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                            pharmaceutical form when they are administered to the
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 22 February 2001, which                      patient in the form of a solution diluted to a macro-
was received at the Court Registry on 5 March 2001, for a                          emulsion, micro-emulsion and nano-dispersion respect-
preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen on the application                     ively?
of Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd against the Licensing
Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by
the Medicines Control Agency), Interveners: 1) Sangstat UK
Ltd and 2) Imtix-Sangstat UK Ltd, on the following questions:                 6.   Is it consistent with the general principle of non-
                                                                                discrimination for a national competent authority, faced
                                                                                with hybrid applications for marketing authorisations
1.    In considering a marketing authorisation for a new                           under Article 4.8(a) of Directive 65/65 referencing prod-
      product (C) under Article 4.8(a)(iii) of Directive 65/65 (1),                uct A for two products, neither of which is bioequivalent
      referencing a product (A) authorised more than                               to product A:
 ---pagebreak--- C 173/24                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.6.2001
      (i)   to indicate that it is necessary for a marketing                          or its ancillary site? Is it relevant generally, with
            authorisation to be granted for product B to be                           respect to falling within the definition of waste,
            supported by full clinical data of the type required                      whether the said by-products of mining operations
            by Part 4(F) of the Annex to Directive 75/318/EC (3);                     are stored on the area of the mining concession, its
            but                                                                       ancillary site or further away?
      (ii) having considered the data filed in support of
            product B, to grant a marketing authorisation for
            product C if that application is supported by trials                 (b) What relevance does it have, in assessing the matter,
            not meeting the requirements of Part 4(F) of the                          that the leftover rock is the same as regards its
            Annex to Directive 75/318/EEC?                                            composition as the basic rock from which it is
                                                                                quarried, and that it does not change its composition
                                                                                regardless of how long it is kept and how it is kept?
                                                                                Should ore-dressing sand which results from the
(1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-                    ore-dressing process perhaps be assessed differently
    mation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-                     from leftover stone in this respect?
    trative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ 22,
    09.02.1965, p. 369 [SE SER 1 (65-66) p. 201]).
(2) ECR 1998 p. I-7967.
(3) Council Directive 75/318/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the approxi-
    mation of the laws of Member States relating to analytical,                  (c)  What relevance does it have, in assessing the matter,
    pharmaco-toxicological and clinical standards and protocols in                    that leftover rock is harmless to human health and
    respect of the testing of proprietary medicinal products (OJ L 147,               the environment, but that, according to the view of
    09.06.1975, p. 1).                                                                the environmental licence authorities, substances
                                                                                harmful to health and the environment dissolve
                                                                                from ore-dressing sand? To what extent generally is
                                                                                importance to be attached to the possible effect of
                                                                                leftover rock and ore-dressing sand on health and
                                                                                the environment in assessing whether they are
                                                                                waste?
                                                                                (d) What relevance does it have, in assessing the matter,
                                                                                that leftover rock and ore-dressing sand are not
                                                                                intended to be discarded? Leftover rock and ore-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
                                                                                dressing sand may be re-used without special pro-
hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 5 March 2001 in
                                                                                cessing measures, for example for supporting mine
   the proceedings brought by Outokumpu Chrome Oy
                                                                                galleries, and leftover rock also for landscaping the
                                                                                mine after it has ceased operation. Minerals may in
                           (Case C-114/01)                                            future with the development of technology be
                                                                                recovered from ore-dressing sand for utilisation. To
                                                                                what extent should attention be paid to how definite
                           (2001/C 173/40)                                            plans the person carrying on mining operations has
                                                                                for such utilisation and to how soon after the
                                                                                leftover rock and ore-dressing sand has been tipped
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                on the mining concession or its ancillary site the
European Communities by an order of the Korkein hallinto-                             utilisation would take place?
oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), Finland, of 5 March
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 March
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by
Outokumpu Chrome Oy on the following questions:                             (2) If the answer to the first question is that leftover rock
                                                                                and/or ore-dressing sand is to be regarded as waste within
                                                                                the meaning of Article 1(a) of the Council Directive on
(1) Are leftover rock resulting from the extraction of ore                       waste, it is further necessary to obtain an answer to the
      and/or ore-dressing sand resulting from the dressing of                    following supplementary questions:
      ore in mining operations to be regarded as waste
      within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council Directive
      75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (1), as amended by
      Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (2),
                                                                                (a)  Does ‘other legislation’ within the meaning of
      having regard to points (a) to (d) below?
                                                                                Article 2(1)(b) of the Waste Directive (91/156/EEC),
                                                                                waste covered by which is excluded from the scope
      (a)   What relevance, in deciding the above question,                           of the directive, and which under point (ii) concerns
            does it have that the leftover rock and ore-dressing                      inter alia waste resulting from prospecting, extrac-
            sand is stored on the area of the mining concession                       tion, treatment and storage of mineral resources,


title: Case F-87/10: Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Adriaens and Others v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/40

         Action brought on 24 September 2010 — Adriaens and Others v Commission
   (Case F-87/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/78
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Stéphane Adriaens (Evere, Belgium) and Others (represented by: Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s decision, contained in the applicants’ pay slips, to limit their salary adjustment, with effect from July 2009, to an increase of 1,85 % in the context of the annual adjustment of remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants on the basis of Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision in so far as it sets the rate of salary adjustment at 1,85 %, applying Regulation No 1296/2009, adjusting with effect from 1 July 2009 the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants and the correction coefficients applied thereto;

               —

               Grant to the applicants backdated interest, calculated on the basis of the rate fixed by the European Central Bank, payable on the total sums corresponding to the difference between the salary specified in the pay slips dating from January 2010 and the adjusted pay slips for the period from July to December 2009 and the salary to which they would have been entitled, until the date of the late adjustment of those salaries:

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-369/05: Action brought on  7 October 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/17

         Action brought on 7 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-369/05)
   (2005/C 296/32)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 October 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Patakia, Legal Adviser in the Legal Service, and N. Yerrell, a member of the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA), (1) or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               the period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 1 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 302, 1.12.2000, p. 57.


title: Case C-414/15 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — Stichting Woonlinie, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting Woonstede v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) (Appeal — State aid — Existing aid — Article 108(1) TFEU — Aid schemes in favour of social housing corporations — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 17, 18 and 19 — Assessment by the Commission of the compatibility with the internal market of an existing aid scheme — Proposal of appropriate measures — Commitments given by the national authorities in order to comply with EU law — Compatibility decision — Scope of judicial review — Legal effects)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — Stichting Woonlinie, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting Woonstede v European Commission, Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN)
   (Case C-414/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Existing aid - Article 108(1) TFEU - Aid schemes in favour of social housing corporations - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 17, 18 and 19 - Assessment by the Commission of the compatibility with the internal market of an existing aid scheme - Proposal of appropriate measures - Commitments given by the national authorities in order to comply with EU law - Compatibility decision - Scope of judicial review - Legal effects))
   (2017/C 151/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellants: Stichting Woonlinie, Woningstichting Volksbelang, Stichting Woonstede (represented by: L. Hancher, E. Besselink and P. Glazener, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and P.J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Belgium, Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, advocaat)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 12 May 2015, Stichting Woonlinie and Others v Commission (T-202/10 RENV, not published, EU:T:2015:287);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case T-250/13: Action brought on 2 May 2013 — Naazneen Investments/OHIM — Energy Brands (SMART WATER)

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/39

         Action brought on 2 May 2013 — Naazneen Investments/OHIM — Energy Brands (SMART WATER)
   (Case T-250/13)
   2013/C 207/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Naazneen Investments Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: P. Goldenbaum, I. Rohr and T. Melchert, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Energy Brands, Inc. (New York, United States)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 1101/2011-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark ‘SMART WATER’, Community trade mark registration No 781 153

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Revoked the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


No C 95 / 12      fENl                 Official Journal of the European Communities              19 . 4 . 95
                                                              III
                                                           (Notices)
                                   EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                      OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                    NOTICE CONCERNING THE ORGANIZATION OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                        (95 /C 95 /08)
             The Secretariat of the European Parliament and the Court of Justice of the European
             Communities are organizing Open Competitions (x) :
             EUR/A/ 56 — LAWYERS — trained in Austrian law
                             (Career bracket A 7/6)
             EUR/A/57 — LAWYERS — trained in Finnish law
                             (Career bracket A 7/6)
             EUR/A/ 5 8 — LAWYERS — trained in Swedish law
                             (Career bracket A 7/6)
            (') OJ No C 95 A, 19. 4. 1995 (German, Finish and Swedish editions).


title: Case C-557/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Lump sum payment and penalty payment)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-557/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Lump sum payment and penalty payment))
   (2016/C 314/03)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J. Reis Silva and J. Brito e Silva, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 7 May 2009 in Commission v Portugal (C-530/07, EU:C:2009:292), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               2.

               If the failure to fulfil obligations established in point 1 has continued until the day of delivery of the present judgment, orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 8 000 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 7 May 2009 in Commission v Portugal (C-530/07, EU:C:2009:292), from the date of delivery of the present judgment until the judgment of 7 May 2009 in Commission v Portugal (C-530/07, EU:C:2009:292) has been complied with in full;

               3.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the European Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a lump sum payment of EUR 3 000 000;

               4.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.6.2015.


title: Case C-250/08: Action brought on 10 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/25

         Action brought on 10 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-250/08)
   (2008/C 223/38)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by taking into account, in the Flemish Region, for the assessment of a tax advantage upon the purchase of immovable property intended as a new principal place of residence, the amount of registration fees paid upon the purchase of a previous principal place of residence only where the latter was situated in the Flemish Region but not where it was in a Member State other than Belgium or in an EEA State, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18, 43 and 56 of the EC Treaty and Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement;

               —

               order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Upon the purchase of a principal place of residence in the Flemish region, the Belgian legislation on registration fees, as in force in the Flemish Region, provides for a reduction of registration fees in an amount corresponding to the registration fees paid upon the purchase of a previous principal place of residence in the Flemish Region, provided that the previous principal place of residence is sold in the same period. The Commission considers that this legislation discriminates against Union citizens who exercise the right of free movement, that it discriminates against Union citizens who exercise the right of establishment, and that it restricts investment in immovable property in the Flemish Region with capital from Member States other than Belgium and therefore that this legislation in principle conflicts with Articles 18, and 43 of the EC Treaty and Article 31 of the EEA Agreement, and Article 56 of the EC Treaty and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement, respectively. The Commission submits that there are no overriding reasons of public interest that could justify these breaches. Nor can the defendant rely on the need to ensure the cohesion of the tax system, because this case concerns two separate fiscal situations, each of which is governed by its own rules applicable to the situation in question.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 18 April 2002 in Case C-332/00: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Clearance of EAGGF accounts — Non-recognition of expenditure — Financial years 1995 to 1997)

text:
C 144/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
      which the insured person received a disability pension under a        concentrated butter intended for the manufacture of pastry
      national accident insurance scheme, without providing for the         products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs and, second, partial
      possibility of a prolongation of that period where a benefit of       annulment of Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July
      such a kind was paid under the legislation of another Member          2000 excluding from Community financing certain expendi-
      State.                                                                ture incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
                                                                            Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
4.    Article 9a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                   Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49) in so far as it excludes
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, a provision which is                 from Community financing expenditure in the amount of
      incompatible with Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty in           EUR 160 225 645 and EUR 3 188 322 respectively incurred
      so far as it excludes the possibility of taking into account, for     by the Kingdom of Belgium in the context of aid for the sale at
      the purposes of the prolongation of the reference period under        a reduced price of butter and the grant of aid for concentrated
      the legislation of a Member State, the periods during which           butter intended for the manufacture of pastry products, ice-
      industrial accident benefits were paid under the legislation of       cream and other foodstuffs, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
      another Member State, is invalid.                                     composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
                                                                            mann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues
                                                                            (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hew-
                                                                            lett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.                                                  18 April 2002, in which it:
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                            2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                            18 April 2002
in Case C-332/00: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Action for annulment — Clearance of EAGGF accounts —                                               (Fourth Chamber)
Non-recognition of expenditure — Financial years 1995 to
                                1997)
                                                                                7 May 2002
                           (2002/C 144/11)
                                                                            in Case C-364/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Directive 97/70/EC — Failure to implement within the
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                   prescribed period)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/12)
In Case C-332/00, Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx) v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Bordes                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
and M. Niejahr): Application for, first, annulment of Com-
mission Decision 2000/448/EC of 5 July 2000 amending
Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the accounts                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure                                   in the European Court Reports)
for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180,
p. 46) in so far as it excludes from Community financing
expenditure in the amount of BEF 50 763 827 incurred by the                 In Case C-364/00, Commission of the European Communities
Kingdom of Belgium in the context of aid for the sale at a                  (Agent: T. van Rijn) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:
reduced price of butter and the grant of aid for butter and                 J. van Bakel): Application for a declaration that, by failing to


title: Case C-157/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA (Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 34(3) and (4) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/26

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH v SC Laminorul SA
   (Case C-157/12) (1)

   (Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 34(3) and (4) - Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State - Situation whereby that judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in that Member State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties)
   2013/C 344/44
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Salzgitter Mannesmann Handel GmbH

      Defendant: SC Laminorul SA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 34(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Recognition of a judgment given in another Member State — Situation in which that decision is irreconcilable with another judgment given previously in the same Member State between the same parties, with the same subject matter and same cause of action

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 34(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not covering irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


5.4.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 83/17
        Removal from the register of Case C-444/01 ( 1)                from the register of Case C-215/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling by the Sozialgericht Stuttgart): Karin Müller v Postbeam-
                         (2003/C 83/35)                                tenkrankenkasse.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.
By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-444/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Stadt Villingen-
Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-241/02 P ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 84 of 06.4.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 83/39)
                                                                       By order of 6 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
        Removal from the register of Case   C-61/02 (1)
                                                                       from the register of Case C-241/02 P: International and
                                                                       European Public Services Organisation (IPSO) v European
                         (2003/C 83/36)
                                                                       Central Bank.
By order of 19 December 2002 the President of the Court of             (1 ) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-61/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.
( 1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-337/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/40)
        Removal from the register of Case C-191/02 ( 1)                By order of 4 February 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                         (2003/C 83/37)                                from the register of Case C-337/02: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v Italian Republic.
By order of 16 December 2002 the President of the Court of             (1 ) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-191/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-368/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/41)
        Removal from the register of Case C-215/02 ( 1)
                                                                       By order of 23 January 2003 the President of the Court of
                         (2003/C 83/38)                                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-368/02: Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
By order of 16 December 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case C-525/03: Action brought on 16 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 59/6                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        6.3.2004
Court taken into account that neither the former rules nor the            Action brought on 16 December 2003 by the Commission
new Regulations include a reference to audits. The audit                  of the European Communities against G. & E. Gianniotis
proposed by ECHO had a discriminatory character in so far as                         EPE, trading as ‘Nosokomio Agia Eleni’
there was no justification given for undertaking such an audit
once the German Foreign Office had confirmed the legal status
of IH as a charitable organisation.                                                                (Case C-524/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/10)
(1) OJ C 31, 8.2.2003, p. 21.
(2) of the Council, of 20 June 1996, concerning humanitarian aid (OJ
    L 163, 2.7.1996, p. 1).
                                                                          An action against G. &. E. Gianniotis EPE, trading as ‘Nosoko-
                                                                          mio Agia Eleni’ was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                          the European Communities on 16 December 2003 by the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Dimitri Triandafilou of its Legal Service, assisted by Nicolao
                                                                          Korogiannakis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against Biotrast AE, Anoni-
               mi Eteria Tekhnologion Aikhmis                             The applicant claims that the Court should order the defendant:
                                                                          (a)   to pay the amount of EUR 236 977,73, comprising the
                          (Case C-523/03)
                                                                                principal sum of EUR 212 010,17 and daily interest of
                                                                                EUR 24 697,76 from the date of each debit note until
                           (2004/C 59/09)                                       31 October 2003;
                                                                          (b) to pay interest in the amount of EUR 42,16 per day as
                                                                                from 31 October 2003 until payment in full of the debt;
An action against Biotrast AE, Anonomi Eteria Tekhnologion
Aikhmis, was brought before the Court of Justice of the                   (c)   to pay the costs.
European Communities on 15 December 2003 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities, represented by Dimitris
Triantafillou, of its Legal Service, and by Nikolaos Koroyian-
nakis, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in                  Pleas in law and main arguments
Luxembourg. The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (a)   Liability to repay the amount unduly paid by the Com-
                                                                                mission;
order the defendant:
                                                                          (b) Date on which interest became payable.
(a)   to pay the amount of EUR 730 726,81, representing a
      capital sum of EUR 661 838,82 and daily interest of EUR
      68 887,99, from the date on which the debit note fell
      due with interest at 4,77 % until 31.12.2002 and 6,77 %
      from 11.2003;
(b) to pay interest in the amount of EUR 122,75 per day
      from 31.10.2003 until the debt is repaid in full;                   Action brought on 16 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
(c)   to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-525/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2004/C 59/11)
(a)   There is an obligation to repay the amount unduly paid
      by the Commission.
                                                                          An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
(b) The date on which interest became payable.                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 December
                                                                          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Klaus Wiedner and Claudio Loggi, acting as
                                                                          Agents.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/7
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                State Forest Department of two-way radio equipment for
                                                                           communication with firefighting aircraft and for the acqui-
—      Declare that, by adopting Article 1, second subparagraph            sition and/or implementation, again on behalf of that Depart-
       and first, second and third subparagraphs of Article 2 of           ment, of air services for fighting forest fires, in the last case
       Order No 3231 of the President of the Council of                    providing, in terms similar to the provision in respect of the
       Ministers of 24 July 2002, which allow for private                  acquisition of firefighting aircraft, that the relevant contracts
       negotiations by way of derogation from the provisions of            may also be entered into in derogation from the legislation
       the Community directives on public supply and service               transposing the Community directives on public contracts
       contracts, and in particular, from the common rules on              and, in particular, Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/36/EEC.
       advertising and participation laid down by Titles III and
       IV of Directive 93/36/EEC (1) and III and V of Directive
       92/50/EEC (2), for the acquisition of aircraft to combat            The Commission further considers that, in those cases,
       forest fires and for the acquisition of firefighting services       recourse cannot be had to private negotiations and that, in any
       and which similarly allow for such negotiations for the             case, no evidence of the existence of the conditions required
       acquisition of technical and computer equipment and                 for recourse to such negotiations was provided by the Italian
       two-way radios, without any of the lawful conditions for            authorities. In particular, none of the conditions under
       derogation from those common rules being satisfied and,             Article 6(2) and (3) of Directive 93/36/EEC and Article 11(2)
       in any event, without ensuring any form of direct                   and (3) of Directive 92/50/EEC is satisfied.
       advertising such as to permit a competitive comparison
       between potential tenderers, the Italian Republic has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/
       36/EEC of 18 June 1992 and Articles 43 and 49 of the                (1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1.
       EC Treaty;                                                          (2) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.
—      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Contracts for the supply of aircraft fall within the scope of              Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission
Directive 93/36/EEC which governs the award procedure for                  of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
public supply contracts.                                                                                Netherlands
Pursuant to Article 6 of the directive, the contracting auth-                                        (Case C-527/03)
orities are to award supply contracts by the open or restricted
procedures. Recourse to the negotiated procedure is permitted
only in the cases expressly provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3                                        (2004/C 59/12)
of that article. Article 6(3) includes, amongst the cases in
which the negotiated procedure is permitted, that where,
for reasons of extreme urgency brought about by events
unforeseeable by the contracting authorities, and for which
those authorities are not responsible, the time limits laid down           An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
for the competitive procedures with prior publication cannot               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
be observed.                                                               15 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils,
                                                                           acting as Agents.
The Commission points out that, in the present case, none of
the conditions laid down by Article 6 of Directive 93/36/EEC
for derogation from the provisions of that directive appears to
apply and that, in particular, there do not appear to be reasons           The applicant claims that the Court should:
of urgency such as to permit the contracting authority to avail
itself of the derogation under Article 6(3)(d) of the directive.           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Directive 2000/59/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
The Commission further points out that the contested order                       of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception
lays down numerous other possibilities for resorting to private                  facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues, or,
negotiations, namely for the acquisition of the material                         in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those
necessary to equip the Department of Civil Protection with                       measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
technical and computer systems, for the acquisition by the                       fulfil its obligations under that directive;


title: Case T-718/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — PTC Therapeutics International Ltd v EMA (Application for interim measures — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents held by the EMA concerning information submitted by an undertaking as part of its application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market — Decision to grant a third party access to the documents — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Prima facie case — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/27

         Order of the President of the General Court of 20 July 2016 — PTC Therapeutics International Ltd v EMA
   (Case T-718/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents held by the EMA concerning information submitted by an undertaking as part of its application for authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market - Decision to grant a third party access to the documents - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Prima facie case - Weighing up of interests))
   (2016/C 326/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PTC Therapeutics International Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: G. Castle, B. Kelly, H. Billson, Solicitors, M. Demetriou, QC, and C. Thomas, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (represented by: T. Jabłoński, A. Spina, A. Rusanov, S. Marino and N. Rampal Olmedo, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: European Confederation of Pharmaceutical Entrepreneurs (Eucope) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Cowlishaw, Solicitor, and D. Scannell, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU for, in essence, the suspension of operation of Decision EMA/722323/2015 of the EMA of 25 November 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), access to certain documents containing information submitted in the context of an application for marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Translarna.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The operation of Decision EMA/722323/2015 of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) of 25 November 2015, granting to a third party, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, access to Clinical Study Report ‘Ataluren (PTC124) PTC124-GD-007-DMD’ on a Phase 2B efficacy and safety study of Ataluren in subjects with nonsense-mutation-mediated Duchenne and Becker muscular dystrophy, is suspended.

               2.

               The EMA shall not disclose the report referred to in point 1.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-282/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Italy v Commission (EAGGF — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Financial corrections — Rural development — Aid to the least well-off)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 November 2006 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-282/04) (1)

   (EAGGF - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Financial corrections - Rural development - Aid to the least well-off)
   (2006/C 331/76)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, Agents)
   Re:
   Partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 202, p. 35) in as far as it concerns certain expenditure made by the Italian Republic.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.


title: Case C-113/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Donal Brady v Environmental Protection Agency (Environment — Directive 75/442/EEC — Slurry produced in a piggery and stored there pending its transfer to farmers who use it as fertiliser on their land — Classification as ‘waste’ or ‘by-product’ — Conditions — Burden of proof — Directive 91/676/EEC — Failure to transpose — Personal liability of the producer as to compliance by those farmers with European Union law concerning the management of waste and fertilisers)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/23

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court — Ireland) — Donal Brady v Environmental Protection Agency
   (Case C-113/12) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 75/442/EEC - Slurry produced in a piggery and stored there pending its transfer to farmers who use it as fertiliser on their land - Classification as ‘waste’ or ‘by-product’ - Conditions - Burden of proof - Directive 91/676/EEC - Failure to transpose - Personal liability of the producer as to compliance by those farmers with European Union law concerning the management of waste and fertilisers)
   2013/C 344/38
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Donal Brady

      Respondent: Environmental Protection Agency

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Interpretation of Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) — Concept of ‘waste’ — Pig slurry supplied by a pig farmer to farmers as fertiliser — Right of a Member State to impose personal liability on the pig farmer in the event of failure by farmers using his slurry as fertiliser on their land to comply with European Union law on the control of waste

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that slurry produced in an intensive pig farm and stored pending delivery to farmers in order to be used by them as fertiliser on their land constitutes not ‘waste’ within the meaning of that provision but a by-product when that producer intends to market the slurry on terms economically advantageous to himself in a subsequent process, provided that such reuse is not a mere possibility but a certainty, without any further processing prior to reuse and as part of the continuing process of production. It is for the national courts to determine, taking account of all the relevant circumstances obtaining in the situations before them, whether those various criteria are satisfied.

               2.

               European Union law does not preclude the burden of proving that the criteria for finding that a substance such as the slurry produced, stored and transferred in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings constitutes a by-product are met from resting on the producer of that slurry, provided that this does not result in the effectiveness of European Union law, and in particular of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, being undermined and that compliance with the obligations flowing from European Union law is ensured, in particular the obligation not to make subject to the provisions of that directive substances which, on application of those criteria, must, under the Court’s case-law, be regarded as by-products to which the directive does not apply.

               3.

               Article 2(1)(b)(iii) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, must be interpreted as meaning that, where Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources has not been transposed into the law of a Member State, livestock effluent produced while operating a pig farm located in that Member State cannot be considered to be, by virtue of the existence of the latter directive, ‘covered by other legislation’ within the meaning of that provision.

               4.

               In a situation where slurry produced and held by a pig farm is to be classified as ‘waste’ within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350:

                           —

                           Article 8 of that directive must be interpreted as precluding the holder from being authorised, under any conditions, to transfer that waste to a farmer who uses it as fertiliser on his land if it transpires that that farmer neither possesses the permit referred to in Article 10 of the directive nor is exempted from the requirement to possess such a permit and registered in accordance with Article 11 of the directive; and

                           —

                           Articles 8, 10 and 11 of the directive, read together, must be interpreted as precluding the transfer of that waste by the holder to a farmer who uses it as fertiliser on his land, and who possesses a permit as referred to in Article 10 or is exempted from the requirement to possess such a permit and is registered in accordance with Article 11, from being subject to the condition that the holder assumes liability for compliance by that other farmer with the rules that are to apply to the recovery operations carried out by the latter by virtue of European Union law concerning the management of waste and fertilisers.

      (1)  OJ C 151, 26.5.2012.


title: Case C-153/99 P: Appeal brought on 23 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 25 February 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-282/97 and T-57/98 between Antonio Giannini and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 246/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.8.1999
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                    by Gilles Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address
                                                                           for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers, 4 Rue de
                           of 11 May 1999                                  l’Avenir — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                           Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 28
                                                                           May 1998 in Joined Cases T-78/96 and T-170/96 W v
in Case C-325/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-239 and II-745, seeking to
the Tribunal Grande Instance de Lille): Philippe Anssens                   have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
         v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Nord (1)                      being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                           Julian Currall, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck) — the Court
     (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissible)                   (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President
                                                                           of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-
                           (1999/C 246/14)                                 Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                           made an order on 10 June 1999, the operative part of which
                                                                           is as follows:
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           1. The appeal is dismissed.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         2. W is to pay the costs.
In Case C-325/98: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
(ex Article 177) from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Lille               (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Philippe Anssens and Directeur des
Services Fiscaux du Nord — on the interpretation of Article
95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) —
the Court composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presi-
dents of Chambers, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm,
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 11
May 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                       Appeal brought on 23 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
                                                                           ed on 25 February 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of the
The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande         Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Instance de Lille, by judgment of 7 August 1998, is inadmissible.          Joined Cases T-282/97 and T-57/98 between Antonio
                                                                           Giannini and the Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                                               ties
                                                                                (Case C-153/99 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/16)
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 February
                                                                           1999 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                           (First Chamber)                                 the European Communities in Joined Cases T-282/97 and
                                                                           T-57/98 between Antonio Giannini and the Commission of
                           of 10 June 1999                                 the European Communities was brought before the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities on 23 April 1999 by the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
in Case C-304/98 P: W v Commission of the European                         Gianluigi Valsesia, Principal Legal Adviser, and Julian Currall,
                           Communities (1)                                 Legal Adviser, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels
                                                                           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
(Officials — Reassignment — Interests of the service —                     Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Administrative fault — Liability of the institution —
        Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
                           (1999/C 246/15)
                                                                           — declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           — consequently, annul the contested judgment (1); and
In Case C-304/98 P: W, an official of the Commission of the
European Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented                  — order the respondent to the appeal to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.8.1999               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 246/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Error of law on the part of the Court of First Instance as
                                                                        In basing its findings on incorrect premisses, namely, an
regards a misuse of powers and infringement of Article 176 of
                                                                        erroneous characterisation of certain facts, the Court of First
the EC Treaty (now Article 233 EC): the Commission maintains
                                                                        Instance reached a conclusion which unlawfully reduced the
that the mere fact that it decided — in consequence of the
                                                                        time-limit for submitting a complaint and prejudiced the rights
initial annulment of the appointment of Mr X — to withdraw
                                                                        of the defence. The Court of First Instance wrongly treated as
the vacancy notice and to replace it with another one cannot
                                                                        a complaint, within the meaning of Article 90(2) of the Staff
in itself be construed, under any circumstances, as tantamount
                                                                        Regulations, a letter from the appellant’s lawyer which clearly
to a misuse of powers without disregarding Article 176 of the
                                                                        shows that the appellant had not yet taken the decision to
EC Treaty itself and the separation of powers which must of
                                                                        submit a complaint.
necessity exist between the executive and the Community
judicature. The wide discretion enjoyed by the appointing
authority in defining the conditions governing access to a post
in accordance with the needs of the service cannot be called in
question, even where the recruitment procedure has been
partially annulled by a judgment of the Community judicature.
In order for it to be able to state that the new vacancy notice
was worded in an arbitrary or even wrongful manner, the
Court of First Instance should first have established the
irrelevance of the qualifications to which particular importance
was attached in the new vacancy notice as publicised.                   Action brought on 20 April 1999 by the European
                                                                        Parliament against Société d’aménagement et d’équipe-
                                                                        ment de la région de Strasbourg (Development and
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999, p. 19.                                        installation company for the region of Strasbourg —
                                                                                S.E.R.S.) and the City of Strasbourg
                                                                                (Case C-167/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/18)
Appeal brought on 26 April 1999, by Corrado Politi
against the order made on 9 February 1999 by the Second                 An action against Société d’aménagement et d’équipement de
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  la région de Strasbourg (S.E.R.S.) and the City of Strasbourg
Communities in Case T-124/98 between Corrado Politi                     was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
             and the European Training Foundation                       Communities on 20 April 1999 by the European Parliament,
                                                                        represented by Timothy Millet, Head of Division in its Legal
                         (Case C-154/99 P)                              Service, and Olivier Caisou-Rousseau, also of that service,
                                                                        acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the General Secretariat of the European Parliament, Mail and
                          (1999/C 246/17)                               Registration Service, Bâtiment Tour, Office 017.
An appeal against the order made on 9 February 1999 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European           The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
Communities in Case T-124/98 between Corrado Politi and
the European Training Foundation was brought before the                 1. order S.E.R.S. to pay penalties for fate completion from 9
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 April                    January 1998, the contractual date for completion of the
1999 by Corrado Politi, represented by Jean-Noël Louis,                     IPE IV building, until 14 December 1998 inclusive, the day
Gréta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brus-                before that building was declared to be completed, or, in
sels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                  the alternative, order S.E.R.S. to pay penalties for fate
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                       completion from such contractual date for completion as
                                                                            the Court may decide;
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        2. declare the delays after 9 January 1998, the contractual
     declare and rule that:                                                 date for completion of the IPE IV building, unjustified, and,
                                                                            accordingly, declare that the European Parliament is not
     — the order of the Court of First Instance of the European             liable to interim interest from that contractual date for
          Communities (Second Chamber) of 9 February 1999                   completion of the IPE IV building until 14 December 1998
          in Case T-124/99 Corrado Politi v European Training               inclusive, or, in the alternative, declare that the European
          Foundation is to be set aside;                                    Parliament is not liable to interim interest from such
                                                                            contractual date for completion as the Court may decide;
     — the case is to be referred back to the Court of First
          Instance for adjudication on the pleas advanced by the
          appellant in the substantive proceedings;                     3. annul the opinion of the College of conciliators;
     make the appropriate ruling as to costs.                           4. order the defendants to pay the costs.


title: Case T-124/15: Action brought on 18 March 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/30

         Action brought on 18 March 2015 — Unicorn v OHIM — Mercilink Equipment Leasing (UNICORN)
   (Case T-124/15)
   (2015/C 171/35)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Unicorn a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: L. Lorenc, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mercilink Equipment Leasing Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark (Representation of a unicorn) – Community trade mark No 11 014 743

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 January 2015 in Case R 149/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               OHIM did not properly take into consideration evidence submitted by the applicant;

               —

               OHIM incorrectly considered good reputation of the earlier trademarks.


title: Case T-328/04: Action brought on 3 August 2004 by Günter Wilms against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/33

         Action brought on 3 August 2004 by Günter Wilms against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-328/04)
   (2004/C 273/64)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 3 August 2004 by Günter Wilms, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc van der Woude and Valérie Landes, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

               —

               annul the list of promotions of 27 November 2003, in that it does not include the applicant's name or, as a subsidiary plea, the list of merit of 13 November 2003, in that it does not include the applicant's name, because of the attribution to him of an insufficient number of additional priority points;

               —

               annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service, adopted on the basis of Article 6(3) of the General Provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, to award him only one Directorate-General priority point and only four priority points in total for the 2003 promotion period;

               —

               annul the appointing authority's decision, adopted on the basis of Article 9 of the General Provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, not to award him any ‘Promotion Committee for additional activity in the interests of the institution’ special priority points for the 2003 promotion year;

               —

               annul the appointing authority's implied decision rejecting the applicant's ‘appeal’ made to the Promotion Committee concerning the award of priority points to the Legal Service and the award of priority points for additional tasks;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant claims that the decision of the Director General of the Legal Service to award him four priority points amounts to infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of Article 6(4) of the General Provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, and breach of the principle that officials are to have reasonable career prospects, and a manifest error of assessment. In addition, he alleges infringement of Article 6(3)(a) of the General Provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle that officials are to have reasonable career prospects, together with the principle of equal treatment. Thirdly, he alleges misuse of powers.
   Moreover, the appointing authority's decision not to award him any priority points for additional duties is, according to the applicant, unlawful for it amounts to infringement of Article 9(1) and (2) of, and of Annex 1 to, the General Provisions giving effect to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle of equal treatment.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the appointing authority's decision not to award him any additional promotion points following his appeal to the promotion committee is unlawful, in that sufficient reasons have not been given for that decision.


title: Case C-360/09: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bonn (Germany)) — Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt (Competition — Administrative procedure — Documents and information provided under a national leniency programme — Possible negative effects of third-party access to such documents on the effectiveness and proper functioning of cooperation between the authorities forming the European Competition Network)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bonn (Germany)) — Pfleiderer AG v Bundeskartellamt
   (Case C-360/09) (1)

   (Competition - Administrative procedure - Documents and information provided under a national leniency programme - Possible negative effects of third-party access to such documents on the effectiveness and proper functioning of cooperation between the authorities forming the European Competition Network)
   2011/C 232/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Bonn

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pfleiderer AG

      Defendant: Bundeskartellamt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Bonn — Interpretation of provisions of Community law on cartels, in particular Articles 11 and 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1), and the second paragraph of Article 10 EC in conjunction with Article 3(1)(g) EC — Documents and information supplied to the Member States’ competition authorities by applicants for leniency pursuant to a national leniency programme — Possible negative effects of third-party access to such documents on the efficiency and proper functioning of the cooperation between the authorities constituting the European competition network

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of European Union law on cartels, and in particular Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU, must be interpreted as not precluding a person who has been adversely affected by an infringement of European Union competition law and is seeking to obtain damages from being granted access to documents relating to a leniency procedure involving the perpetrator of that infringement. It is, however, for the courts and tribunals of the Member States, on the basis of their national law, to determine the conditions under which such access must be permitted or refused by weighing the interests protected by European Union law.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


C 247/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                26.8.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-405/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-417/98 P (1)
                         (2000/C 247/43)                                                     (2000/C 247/47)
By order of 4 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 10 May 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-405/99: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-417/98 P: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                    Communities v Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co.
                                                                     KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH Kai Interporc Im- und Export GmbH.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-426/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-156/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/44)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/48)
By order of 6 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 10 May 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-426/99 (reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberlandesgericht, Düsseldorf): Connaught            the register of Case C-156/99: Commission of the European
Laboratories Inc. v SmithKline Beecham Pharma GmbH and               Communities v French Republic.
SmithKline Beecham Biologicals Manufacturing SA.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-355/99 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-168/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/45)                                                     (2000/C 247/49)
By order of 7 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 11 May 2000 the President of the First Chamber
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
the register of Case C-355/99: Commission of the European            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-168/99:
Communities v Ireland.                                               Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-412/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/46)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-229/99 (1)
By order of 18 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                              (2000/C 247/50)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-412/99: Commission of the European            By order of 15 May 2000 the President of the First Chamber
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                   of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                     ordered the removal from the register of Case C-229/99:
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                            Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Case T-398/12: Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Cosma Moden v OHMI — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/81

         Order of the General Court of 4 June 2013 — Cosma Moden v OHMI — s.Oliver Bernd Freier (COSMA)
   (Case T-398/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 225/179
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Cosma Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Emsdetten, Germany) (represented by: J. Meyer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: s.Oliver Bernd Freier GmbH & Co. KG (Rottendorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Körber and B. Bleifeld, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 July 2012 (Case R 2011/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Cosma Moden GmbH & Co. KG and s.Oliver Bernd Freier & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal shall bear their own costs and each shall pay half of the costs of the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.