title: Case T-43/13: Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Donnici v Parliament

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/31

         Action brought on 29 January 2013 — Donnici v Parliament
   (Case T-43/13)
   2013/C 79/52
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Beniamino Donnici (Castrolibero, Italy) (represented by: V. Vallefuoco and J. Van Gyseghem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should find serious fault on the part of the European Parliament in relation to its decision adopted on 24 May 2007 to the applicant’s disadvantage, subsequently annulled by the judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 April 2009 and, thus, order the European Parliament to make good the material and non-material damage suffered or to be suffered by him as a result of that unlawful measure, even on an equitable basis which amounts to EUR 1 720 470, or in such lesser amount as the Court considers appropriate. The applicant claims that the European Parliament should pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present proceedings — who is also the applicant in Cases T-215/07 and C-9/08 Donnici v Parliament — seeks compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the defendant’s refusal to recognise the validity of his mandate as a member of the European Parliament. That decision was subsequently annulled by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
   In support of his action, the applicant submits that in the present case all the conditions established by the case-law for a declaration that the institutions of the European Union are non-contractually liable are satisfied; this applies in particular to:

               —

               the unlawfulness of the conduct alleged;

               —

               the requirement for the damage to be real;

               —

               the existence of a causal link, and

               —

               fault on the part of the European Union, or the degree of infringement by it. In that regard, the applicant states that, through the decision giving rise to the present proceedings, the defendant has disregarded in a sufficiently serious manner a rule intended to confer rights on individuals.


title: Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-109/96)

text:
No C 158/6             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   1 . 6 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
The mandatory nature of the third paragraph of Article 189                                    ( Case C- 1 09/96 )
and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires
Member States to adopt the measures necessary to comply                                          ( 96/C 158/ 12 )
with the Directives which are addressed to them within the
period prescribed therein. That period expired on 1 April              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
 1993 without the Kingdom of Spain having brought into                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
force the necessary provisions .                                       3 April 1 996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
(') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                              Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in
( 2 ) OJ No L 194, 25 . 7 . 1975 , p . 39 .                            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the
                                                                       Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                      obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of                also to communicate to the Commission in due time the
27 March 1996 in the case of Procureur du Roi, civil party:                laws, regulations and administrative provisions
Union professionnelle belge des médecins spécialistes en                   necessary in order to comply fully with Council
ophtalmologie et chirurgie oculaire against Dennis Mac                     Directive 91/371 /EEC of 20 June 1991 on the
Queen and Others , party liable at civil law: Vision Express               implementation of the Agreement between the European
                             Belgium SA                                    Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation
                         ( Case C-108/96 )                                 concerning direct insurance other than life
                                                                           assurance (');
                           ( 96/C 158/ 11 )
                                                                       — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                    Pleas in law and main arguments
Première Instance de Bruxelles ( Court of First Instance,
Brussels ) of 27 March 1996 , which was received at the                Under Article 189 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the
Court Registry on 3 April 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in          European Community directives are to be binding upon
the case of Procureur du Roi, civil party: Union                       each Member State to which they are addressed . The
professionnelle belge des médecins spécialistes en                     Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures
ophtalmologie et chirurgie oculaire against Dennis Mac                 necessary to incorporate the relevant Directive fully into
Queen, Derek Pouton, Caria Emma Johanna Godts and                      Greek law and has also failed to communicate any such
Youssef Antoun, party liable at civil law: Vision Express              measures to the Commission .
Belgium SA, on the following questions :
                                                                       (') OJ No L 205 , 1991 , p . 48 .
1 . Is a prohibition, arising from the interpretation or the
      application of a provision of national law, restraining
      opticians in other Member States from offering within a
      Member State, for the correction of purely optical
      eyesight defects, services consisting of an objective
      eyesight examination, that is to say otherwise than by          Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
      using a method by which the client himself determines               European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      the eyesight deficiencies and sees to the corection to be                              ( Case C-1 10/96 )
      made , compatible with Articles 5 , 52 and 59 of the EC
      Treaty ?                                                                                ( 96/C 158 /13 )
2 . Are obstacles within a Member State to the marketing of           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
      equipment which enables an objective eyesight                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      examination to be carried out with a view to correcting          3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European
      purely optical eyesight defects, such as, for example, an        Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
      autorefractor, arising from the ban imposed by national         Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in
      law on opticians established in other Member States              Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
      preventing them from offering, within that Member                Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      State, services consisting of an objective eyesight
      examination, that is to say a non-subjective                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
      examination, for the correction of purely optical
      eyesight defects, compatible with Article 30 of the EC          — declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
      Treaty ?                                                             obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
                                                                           also to communicate to the Commission in due time
                                                                           the laws, regulations and administrative provisions


title: Case T-198/13: Order of the General Court of 3 February 2014  — Imax v OHIM — Himax Technologies (IMAX) (Community trade mark  — Opposition  — Withdrawal of the opposition  — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/35

         Order of the General Court of 3 February 2014 — Imax v OHIM — Himax Technologies (IMAX)
   (Case T-198/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 142/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Imax Corporation (Mississauga, Canada) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, lawyer, and K. Hughes, solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Himax Technologies, Inc. (Hsinhua, Taiwan)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 January 2013 (Case R 740/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Himax Technologies, Inc. and Imax Corporation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The parties shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.13.


title: Case T-192/07: Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise v Commission

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/36

         Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise v Commission
   (Case T-192/07)
   (2007/C 170/69)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise (Committee for the protection of wine-growing in the Charente) (Sainte-Sévère, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission decision No SG-Greffe (2007) D-20276 of 3 April 2007 addressed to the applicant's representative and thus declare void the measure contested in this action;

               —

               declare null and void in its entirety the Commission's decision by which it dismisses the applicant's complaint.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By decision of 3 April 2007 the Commission decided not to allow the applicant's complaint concerning the alleged infringement of Article 81 EC by the Institut National des Appellations d'Origine (INAO) (National Institute of Designations of Origin) in France and the alleged infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by the major firms trading in cognac spirit (Case COMP/38863/B2-MODEF). By this action, the applicant is seeking the annulment of that decision.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas.
   The first plea relates to the alleged lack of competence of the Commission member who was the signatory to the contested measure, when he signed it ‘on behalf of the Commission’.
   Second, the applicant submits that the decision did not contain a sufficient statement of reasons in so far as the Commission did not respond in the letter rejecting the complaint to all the information submitted by the applicant.
   By its third plea, the applicant claims that the Commission did not give sufficiently serious consideration to the complaint.


title: Case T-170/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — RW v Commission (Interim measures — Civil Service — Officials — Requirement to take leave and compulsory retirement — Retirement age — Article 42c of the Staff Regulations — Application for a stay of execution — Fumus boni juris — Urgency — Balance of interests)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/26

         Order of the President of the General Court of 18 May 2017 — RW v Commission
   (Case T-170/17 R)
   ((Interim measures - Civil Service - Officials - Requirement to take leave and compulsory retirement - Retirement age - Article 42c of the Staff Regulations - Application for a stay of execution - Fumus boni juris - Urgency - Balance of interests))
   (2017/C 231/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: RW (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking a stay of execution of the Commission’s decision of 2 March 2017 placing the applicant on leave in the interests of the service and compulsorily retiring him with effect from 1 June 2017.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The execution of the Commission’s decision of 2 March 2017 placing the applicant on leave in the interests of the service and compulsorily retiring him with effect from 1 June 2017 is stayed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-781/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — TVR Automotive v OHIM — Cardoni (TVR ENGINEERING) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark TVR ENGINEERING — Earlier Community figurative mark TVR — Relative ground for refusal — No similarity between the signs — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — TVR Automotive v OHIM — Cardoni (TVR ENGINEERING)
   (Case T-781/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark TVR ENGINEERING - Earlier Community figurative mark TVR - Relative ground for refusal - No similarity between the signs - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 098/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TVR Automotive Ltd (Whiteley, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Fabio Cardoni (Milan, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 (Case R 2532/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between TVR Automotive Ltd and Fabio Cardoni.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders TVR Automotive Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Case C-121/06 P: Appeal brought on  1 March 2006  by Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA and Fedon America Inc. against the judgment delivered on  14 December 2005  in Case T-135/01 Girogio Fedon & Figli SpA, Fedon America Inc. v Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/7

         Appeal brought on 1 March 2006 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA and Fedon America Inc. against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2005 in Case T-135/01 Girogio Fedon & Figli SpA, Fedon America Inc. v Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union
   (Case C-121/06 P)
   (2006/C 108/11)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellants:Girogio Fedon & Figli SpA, Fedon America In. (represented by: I. Van Bael, A. Cevese, F. Di Gianni and R. Antonini, Avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005;

               —

               on the basis that the state of the proceedings so permits, give a substantive ruling confirming the appellants' entitlement to compensation arising out of the defendants' liability for an unlawful act or for a lawful act;

               —

               in any event, order the defendants to pay the costs both of these proceedings and those before the Court of First Instance;

               —

               in the alternative, grant the appellants fair compensation as a result of the unreasonable length of the procedure before the Court of First Instance;

               —

               grant such further and other relief as equity might require.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellants submit that the judgment under appeal is defective in that it fails totally to state any grounds concerning one of the principal arguments raised, namely, that in the specific factual circumstances of the case, the appellants are entitled to rely on the decision adopted by the Appeal Board of the World Trade Organisation to establish unlawful conduct on the part of the Community for the purposes of their claim for compensation.


title: Case C-44/09: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/44

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 12 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-44/09) (1)

   2010/C 63/71

      Language of the case: Greek

   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case C-376/16 P: Appeal brought on 7 July 2016 by European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-556/11: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/14

         Appeal brought on 7 July 2016 by European Union Intellectual Property Office against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 27 April 2016 in Case T-556/11: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-376/16 P)
   (2016/C 402/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: N. Bambara, Agent, P. Wytinck, B. Hoorelbeke, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, European Dynamics Belgium SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               In principal order

                           —

                           Annul the Contested Judgment of the General Court in its entirety,

                           —

                           reject the Application for annulment of the Contested Decision and the request for damages as brought forward by the Applicant in first instance;

               —

               In subsidiary order, annul the Contested Judgment of the General Court in its entirety, and refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               In secondary subsidiary order, annul the Contested Judgment of the General Court in so far as it orders the EUIPO to pay damages to European Dynamics Luxembourg for loss of opportunity to be awarded the framework contract, and refer the case back to the General Court;

               —

               Order the Applicants in first instance to pay the entire costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Appeal is based on four main grounds l, notably that: 1) the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of the principles of equal opportunities and transparency, and has in any event distorted the facts, 2) the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of the test regarding manifest errors of assessment and in some cases distorted the facts, 3) the General Court erred in law in the application of Article 100 (2) of the General Financial Regulation read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, and 4) the General Court erred in law by the award for damages on the basis of the loss of opportunity.

               2.

               In the First Ground of Appeal, the Appellant alleges that the General Court ruled ultra petita in breach of Article 21 of the Statute of the Court and Articles 76 (1) and 84 (1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, or in the alternative erred in law in ruling that a violation of the principles of equal opportunities and due diligence could lead to an annulment of the Contested Decision, by holding that the Contested Decision should be annulled in so far as EUIPO did not request nor obtain extracts from the judicial records of Siemens SA and Siemens SL demonstrating the absence of any of the exclusion grounds listed in Art. 93 and 94 FR. In the second part of the first ground of appeal, the Appellant also demonstrates that the General Court has distorted the facts by holding that EUIPO did not request nor produce any evidence which was in accordance to Article 134b Implementing rules sufficient to demonstrate the absence of exclusion grounds for Siemens SL, as the case file does contain an extract from the registro mercantil which is an equivalent document to an extract from the judicial record in the sense of Article 134b Implementing rules.

               3.

               In the Second Ground of Appeal, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in law by not examining whether the established manifest errors of assessment made by the evaluation committee in the evaluation of European Dynamics’ tender could have had an impact on the final outcome of the contested award decision. The Appellant points out the General Court is required to examine whether the established manifest errors of assessment would lead to a different outcome for the award procedure by examining whether the established manifest errors have an effect on the score awarded for a given criterion in case there are several other reasons (which are not vitiated by a manifest error of assessment) which equally support the scores awarded. In addition, 82 the Appellant demonstrates that on numerous occasions the General Court has either distorted the facts, applied the wrong test to establish manifest errors of assessment by simply substituting its assessment of the facts for that of EUIPO, or erred in law by holding that an insufficient motivation could be considered as an evidence of a manifest error of assessment.

               4.

               In the Third Ground of Appeal, the Appellant puts forward that the General Court erred in law by requiring that the motivation of the decision should make clear how each (negative) comment impacted on the points awarded for each sub-criterion and subpoint, and as such applied a stricter test regarding the duty to state reasons as the one that follows from the settled case-law of the Court of Justice. For that reason the General Court erred in law in annulling the contested decision on the grounds of a violation of Article 100 (2) General Financial Regulation read in conjunction with Article 296 TFEU.

               5.

               In the Fourth Ground of Appeal, the Appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law in awarding damages to the first Applicant in first instance as one of the cumulative conditions for incurring non-contractual liability of EU institutions (i.e. the presence of unlawful conduct) has not been demonstrated. In subsidiary order, the Appellant submits that, even if the Appeal of EUIPO would only succeed on its first ground of appeal, the Contested Judgment should still be annulled insofar as it imposes the obligation to pay damages as in that case the existence of a causal link between the remaining unlawful conduct (manifest error of assessment and failure to state reasons) and the alleged harm is not demonstrated. In the alternative the Appellant demonstrated that the General Court erred in law by awarding damages on the basis of the loss of opportunity as such a basis to award damages cannot be considered as a general principle common to the laws of the Member States and thus violated the explicit provision of Article 340 TFEU.


title: Case C-189/07: Action brought on 3 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/10

         Action brought on 3 April 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-189/07)
   (2007/C 129/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by P. Oliver and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that,
               by failing to carry out satisfactorily the monitoring, inspection and surveillance of fishing activities within its territory and within maritime waters subject to its sovereignty or jurisdiction, including the landing and marketing of species subject to rules on minimum size under Regulations (EC) No 850/98 (1) and 2406/96 (2); and
               by failing to act with sufficient diligence to ensure the adoption of appropriate measures against those responsible for infringing Community provisions, in particular by bringing administrative actions or criminal proceedings and imposing penalties which have a deterrent effect on those responsible;
               the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) and Article 31(1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (3).

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The regulatory framework applicable requires that Member States:

               —

               implement an effective system for the monitoring, inspection and surveillance of landing and marketing activities in relation to species subject to rules on minimum size;

               —

               impose penalties which have a deterrent effect on those responsible for infringing Community provisions;

               —

               enforce effectively penalties capable of being imposed on those responsible in order to prevent unjust enrichment from illegal activity.

         In the present case it has been duly established that Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community legislation on controls and penalties for infringements relating to fishing activities. That failure to fulfil obligations is not only evidenced by the conclusions reached by the Community inspectors but is also accepted by the defendant.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (OJ 1998 L 125, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2406/96 of 26 November 1996 laying down common marketing standards for certain fishery products (OJ 1996 L 334, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1).


title: Case C-431/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State by judgment of that court of 4 November 1999 in the case of Nedlloyd Lĳnen B.V. against Customs Inspector, Rotterdam District

text:
C 20/16                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Raad van State                4. (a) Must a Member State’s legislation such as the VBS be
by judgment of that court of 4 November 1999 in the                              deemed to constitute aid within the meaning of
case of Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. against Customs Inspector,                          Article 92(1) (now Article 87(1)) of the EC Treaty,
                       Rotterdam District                                        inasmuch as it exempts certain categories of partici-
                                                                                pants, particularly inland navigation, from the require-
                                                                                ment to pay the charge?
                         (Case C-431/99)
                                                                            (b) If so, does such aid come within the prohibition of that
                                                                                provision?
                          (2000/C 20/32)
                                                                            (c) If Question 4(b) is also answered affirmatively, does
                                                                                the description of aid prohibited under Community
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           law also have consequences under Community law for
European Communities by judgment of the Raad van State                           the remuneration which the participants, apart from
(Council of State) of 4 November 1999, received at the Court                     those exempted, are required to pay?
Registry on 8 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V. against Customs Inspector,
Rotterdam District on the following questions:
1. (a) Does legislation such as the VBS, in so far as it provides
        for mandatory participation in traffic accompaniment,
        constitute a restriction on freedom to provide services,
        as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 in
        conjunction with Article 59 (now Article 49) of the EC
        Treaty?
                                                                        Action brought on 9 November 1999 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    (b) If not, is it otherwise if participants in the scheme are
        charged for services provided?
                                                                                (Case C-432/99)
    (c) Must Question 1(b) be answered differently if that
        charge is levied on participants in the scheme whose
        participation is mandatory, though not on other users                                     (2000/C 20/33)
        such as inland navigation or sea vessels with a length
        of less than 41 metres?
                                                                        An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 November
2. (a) If legislation such as the VBS and its associated charge         1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
        constitutes an obstacle to freedom to provide services,         represented by Hendrik van Lier, of its Legal Service, and
        does such restriction then come under the exception             Giacinto Bisogni, appeal court judge on secondment to the
        provided for in Article 56 (now Article 46) of the EC           Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
        Treaty for provisions justified on grounds of public            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
        security?                                                       Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    (b) Is it material to the reply to be given to Question 2(a)        The applicant claims that the Court should:
        whether the charge is greater than the actual cost of
        the service provided to the individual vessel?
                                                                        — declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or, in
                                                                            any event, by failing to communicate to the Commission
3. If legislation such as the VBS and its associated charge                 within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
    constitutes an obstacle to freedom to provide services,                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
    and such restriction is not justified under the exception               tive 96/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the
    provided for in Article 56 (now Article 46) of the EC                   Council of 3 September 1996 on energy efficiency require-
    Treaty, can the restriction be justified either because it              ments for household electric refrigerators, freezers and
    merely concerns a ‘sales arrangement’, as laid down in                  combinations thereof, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to
    Keck and Mithouard, and there is thus no question of                    fulfil its obligations under that directive;
    discrimination, or because it meets the yardsticks for such
    legislation laid down in other judgments, in particular in
    Gebhard?                                                            — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-145/12: Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v OHIM (ECO PRO) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark ECO PRO — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 April 2013 — Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v OHIM (ECO PRO)
   (Case T-145/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark ECO PRO - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 164/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Onken, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 January 2012 (Case R 1418/2011-4), concerning the international registration designating the European Community of the word sign ECO PRO

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bayerische Motoren Werke AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-543/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 27 November 2014  — Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others v Conseil des ministres

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 27 November 2014 — Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others v Conseil des ministres
   (Case C-543/14)
   (2015/C 046/31)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others,
   Vlaams Netwerk van Verenigingen waar armen het woord nemen ASBL and Others,
   Jimmy Tessens and Others,
   Orde van Vlaamse Balies,
   Ordre des avocats du barreau d’Arlon and Others

      Defendant: Conseil des ministres

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           By making services supplied by lawyers subject to VAT without taking account, having regard to the right to the assistance of a lawyer and the principle of equality of arms, of whether or not a client who does not qualify for legal aid is subject to VAT, is Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1) compatible with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in so far as that article recognises that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and has the possibility of being advised, defended and represented and that there is a right to legal aid for those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice?

                           (b)

                           For the same reasons, is Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 compatible with Article 9(4) and (5) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, signed in Aarhus on 25 June 1998, in so far as those provisions establish a right of access to justice without the cost of those procedures being prohibitively expensive through ‘the establishment of appropriate assistance mechanisms to remove or reduce financial and other barriers to access to justice’?

                           (c)

                           May services provided by lawyers under a national legal aid scheme be included in the services referred to in Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112/EC which are closely linked to welfare and social security work, or may they be exempted under another provision of the directive? If that question is answered in the negative, is Directive 2006/112/EC, interpreted as not permitting a VAT exemption for services supplied by lawyers for clients who qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme, compatible with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

               2.

               If the questions mentioned in paragraph 1 are answered in the negative, is Article 98 of Directive 2006/112/EC, in so far as it does not provide for the possibility of applying a reduced rate of VAT to services supplied by lawyers, as the case may be depending on whether or not a client who does not qualify for legal aid is subject to VAT, compatible with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in conjunction with Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in so far as that article recognises that everyone is entitled to a fair hearing and has the possibility of being advised, defended and represented and that there is a right to legal aid for those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice?

               3.

               If the questions mentioned in paragraph 1 are answered in the negative, is Article 132 of Directive 2006/112/EC compatible with the principle of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union, in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter, in so far as it does not provide, among activities in the public interest, for VAT exemption for services of lawyers, when other supplies of services are exempted as activities in the public interest, such as the supply of services by the public postal services, various medical services or services connected with education, sport or culture, and when that difference in treatment between services of lawyers and services exempted by Article 132 of the directive raises sufficient doubts because services of lawyers contribute to respect for certain fundamental rights?

               4.

                           (a)

                           If the questions mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 3 are answered in the negative, can Article 371 of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted, in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as authorising a Member State of the European Union partially to maintain the exemption for services supplied by lawyers where those services are performed for clients who are not subject to VAT?

                           (b)

                           Can Article 371 of Directive 2006/112/EC also be interpreted, in accordance with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as authorising a Member State of the European Union partially to maintain the exemption for services supplied by lawyers where those services are performed for clients who qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-154/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — MRI v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for marine hoses — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Price-fixing, market-sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information — Concept of continuing or repeated infringement — Limitation period — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Legal certainty — Fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Extenuating circumstances — Cooperation)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2013 — MRI v Commission
   (Case T-154/09) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for marine hoses - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Price-fixing, market-sharing and the exchange of commercially sensitive information - Concept of continuing or repeated infringement - Limitation period - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Legal certainty - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Extenuating circumstances - Cooperation)
   2013/C 189/31
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Manuli Rubber Industries SpA (MRI) (Milan, Italy) (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Pappalardo and E. Marasà, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, S. Noë and L. Prete, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39406 — Marine hoses), in so far as that decision concerns the applicant, and, in the alternative, for annulment of or a substantial reduction in the fine imposed on it in that decision

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2(f) of Commission Decision C(2009) 428 final of 28 January 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39406 — Marine hoses);

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on MRI at EUR 4 900 000;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case C-495/08: Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/17

         Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-495/08)
   (2009/C 32/27)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by
               failing to provide that individual decisions not to carry out an environmental impact assessment pursuant to Article 4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) as amended must be supported by sufficient reasoning, and
               failing to make ROMP applications lodged in Wales prior to 15 November 2000 subject to the requirements of that Directive,
               the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive.

               2.

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Under the United Kingdom legislation reasons must be given only if an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is found to be necessary: if, for whatever reason, the relevant planning authority or the Secretary of State reaches the conclusion that no EIA is necessary, then nothing in the Regulations requires any reasons to be given in support of that conclusion. The Commission submits that individual decisions taken by Member States not to carry out an EIA pursuant to Article 4(2) to (4) of the directive must be supported by adequate reasoning.
   Furthermore, the United Kingdom has not enacted legislation in Wales which would make Review of Mineral Planning (‘ROMP’) applications subject to the requirements of the directive.

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ L 175, p. 40).


title: Case T-285/16: Order of the General Court of 15 May 2017 — Dominator International v EUIPO (DREAMLINE) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark DREAMLINE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Not distinctive — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/24

         Order of the General Court of 15 May 2017 — Dominator International v EUIPO (DREAMLINE)
   (Case T-285/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark DREAMLINE - Absolute grounds for refusal - Not distinctive - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2017/C 231/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dominator International GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: N. Gugerbauer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 4 March 2016 (Case R 1669/2015-2) concerning the international registration designating the European Union of word mark DREAMLINE.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Dominator International GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case T-385/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 December 2010 — ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Commission decision imposing a fine — Bank guarantee — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Financial loss — Absence of exceptional circumstances — No urgency)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/24

         Order of the President of the General Court of 7 December 2010 — ArcelorMittal Wire France and Others v Commission
   (Case T-385/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Competition - Commission decision imposing a fine - Bank guarantee - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Financial loss - Absence of exceptional circumstances - No urgency)
   2011/C 55/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ArcelorMittal Wire France (Bourg-en-Bresse, France); ArcelorMittal Fontaine (Fontaine-l’Évêque, Belgium); and ArcelorMittal Verderio Srl (Verderio Inferiore, Italy) (represented by: H. Calvet, O. Billard and M. Pittie, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Giolito, L. Parpala and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2010) 4387 final, of 30 June 2010, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing steel), as amended by Commission Decision C(2010) 6676 final of 30 September 2010.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed;

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-352/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dortmund — Germany) — Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Akzo Nobel NV, Solvay SA/NV, Kemira Oyj, FMC Foret SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Article 6(1) — Action, brought against several defendants domiciled in various Member States and which have participated in a cartel found to be contrary to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, seeking an order for the defendants to pay damages jointly and severally and for disclosure of information — Jurisdiction of the court seised with regard to the other defendants — Withdrawal of the action in relation to the defendant domiciled in the Member State of the court seised — Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction clauses — Article 23 — Effective enforcement of the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements, decisions and concerted practices)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 May 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Dortmund — Germany) — Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA v Akzo Nobel NV, Solvay SA/NV, Kemira Oyj, FMC Foret SA
   (Case C-352/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 6(1) - Action, brought against several defendants domiciled in various Member States and which have participated in a cartel found to be contrary to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, seeking an order for the defendants to pay damages jointly and severally and for disclosure of information - Jurisdiction of the court seised with regard to the other defendants - Withdrawal of the action in relation to the defendant domiciled in the Member State of the court seised - Jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict - Article 5(3) - Jurisdiction clauses - Article 23 - Effective enforcement of the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements, decisions and concerted practices))
   (2015/C 236/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Dortmund

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) Hydrogen Peroxide SA

      Defendants: Akzo Nobel NV, Solvay SA/NV, Kemira Oyj, FMC Foret SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 6(1) 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 meaning that the rule on centralisation of jurisdiction in the case of several defendants, as established in that provision, can apply in the case of an action for damages, and for disclosure in that regard, brought jointly against undertakings which have participated in different places and at different times in a single and continuous infringement, which has been established by a decision of the European Commission, of the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements, decisions and concerted practices provided for under EU law, even where the applicant has withdrawn its action against the sole co-defendant domiciled in the same State as the court seised, unless it is found that, at the time the proceedings were instituted, the applicant and that defendant had colluded to artificially fulfil, or prolong the fulfilment of, that provision’s applicability;

               2)

               Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an action for damages brought against defendants domiciled in various Member States as a result of a single and continuous infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, which has been established by the European Commission, in which the defendants participated in several Member States, at different times and in different places, the harmful event occurred in relation to each alleged victim on an individual basis and each of the victims can, by virtue of Article 5(3), choose to bring an action before the courts of the place in which the cartel was definitively concluded or, as the case may be, the place in which one agreement in particular was concluded which is identifiable as the sole causal event giving rise to the loss allegedly suffered, or before the courts of the place where its own registered office is located;

               3)

               Article 23(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as allowing, in the case of actions for damages for an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992, account to be taken of jurisdiction clauses contained in contracts for the supply of goods, even if the effect thereof is a derogation from the rules on international jurisdiction provided for in Article 5(3) and/or Article 6(1) of that regulation, provided that those clauses refer to disputes concerning liability incurred as a result of an infringement of competition law.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 12.10.2013.


               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/38

         Removal from the register of Case T-249/03 (1)

   (2004/C 217/70)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 11 June 2004, the President of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-249/03, Y v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.


title: Case C-115/99: Action brought on 8 April 1999 by the Kingdom of Sweden against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 188/10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            3.7.1999
Action brought on 8 April 1999 by the Kingdom of                       establishment of Sweden’s allocations of the Community’s
    Sweden against the Council of the European Union                   fishing opportunities in the Act of accession.
                        (Case C-115/99)                                (1) Of 18 December 1998 fixing, for certain fish and groups of fish
                                                                           stocks, the total allowable catches for 1999 and certain conditions
                                                                           under which they may be fished, OJ L 13, 18.1.1999, p. 1.
                        (1999/C 188/22)                                (2) OJ L 1, 1.1.1995, p. 1.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 8 April 1999 by the Kingdom of Sweden, represented
by Lotty Nordling, Head of the Legal Secretariat, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Swedish Embassy,
2 Rue H. Heine, 1720 Luxembourg.
                                                                       Action brought on 8 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the Italian Republic
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-116/99)
1. pursuant to Article 173, annul Council Regulation (EC)
     No 48/99 (1) to the extent that the regulation concerns the                                  (1999/C 188/23)
     allocation of cod in Zone IIIbcd and haddock in Zone IIa
     and the North Sea, and:
                                                                       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
2. order the Council to pay Sweden’s costs.                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
                                                                       1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                       Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                       Centre, Kirchberg.
Disregard of Article 121(1) of the Act concerning the con-             The applicant claims that the Court should:
ditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to
the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, in the            1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
version pursuant to Council Decision No 95/1/EC, Euratom,                   within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
ECSC (2):                                                                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with Parlia-
                                                                            ment and Council Directive 95/16/EC of 29 June 1995 on
                                                                            the approximation of the laws of the Member States
For 1999 a catch of 77 434 tonnes of cod is available to the                relating to lifts, (1) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
Community for fishing in the Community waters in Zone                       its obligations under the EC Treaty;
IIIbcd. According to the conditions in Article 121(1) of
the Act of accession, Sweden should have been allocated                2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
26 382 tonnes of that catch. In this connection account has
been taken of the fact that transfers of 500 tonnes to Poland
and 79 tonnes to Latvia have been deducted from Sweden’s
quota and that 1 763 tonnes of Sweden’s quota for 1999 is to           Pleas in law and main arguments
be transferred to other Member States in accordance with the
agreement reached in conjunction with the signing of the
EEA Agreement. Instead, Regulation No 48/99 has allocated              Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
Sweden 25 870 tonnes, which is 512 tonnes less than follows            directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
from the Act of accession.                                             each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States are
                                                                       required to observe the time-limits laid down in directives for
                                                                       their transposition. That time-limit expired on 1 January 1997
Sweden has been allocated 290 tonnes of haddock, which is              without the Italian Republic having brought into force the
68 tonnes less than provided for under the Act of accession.           necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
Since the allocations to be made to Sweden from the Com-               referred to in the Commission’s application.
munity’s fishing opportunities have been specified in the Act
of accession, the Council has no scope, when establishing the
catch to be allocated to Sweden, to make a discretionary               (1) OJ 1995 L 213, p. 1.
assessment on the basis of the basic regulation and to take into
account the so-called ‘Hague preferences’. The balancing of
various interests which is to take place when establishing
catches has already taken place in connection with the


title: Case T-500/17: Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/25

         Action brought on 7 August 2017 — Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission
   (Case T-500/17)
   (2017/C 318/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co. Ltd (Huangshi, China) (represented by: E. Vermulst and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/804 of 11 May 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (other than stainless steel), of circular cross-section, of an external diameter exceeding 406,4 mm, originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2017 L 121, p. 3) at least as far as the applicant is concerned; and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Articles 3(2) and (3) Basic Regulation (1) as well as Articles 3.1 and 3.2 WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in determining price undercutting. According to the applicant, the Commission merely conducted a mathematical comparison between prices for the year 2015 only without undertaking a dynamic assessment of price developments and trends in the relationship between imported prices and domestic prices. The applicant further puts forward that the Commission also did not establish price undercutting for the product as a whole.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission violated Article 3(6) Basic Regulation (and Article 3.5 WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement) in basing the causation analysis on an illegal undercutting determination.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that in establishing a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury to the Union industry, the Commission committed a manifest error in finding that (1) there was a correlation between the dumped imports and the injury to the Union industry; and (2) that other factors (decrease in export performance and demand and an increase of imports from other countries) did not individually or collectively break this causal link.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached its obligation of due diligence and proper administration by refusing to engage in an injury and causation analysis by segment, thereby failing to ensure that its injury and causation findings were not distorted.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).


 11 . 11 . 95       | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 299/21
       Removal from the register of Case T-555 /93 (')                3 . the Kingdom of Spain shall hear its own costs.
                          ( 95 /C 299/42 )
                                                                      (') OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
               (Language of the case: English)
By order of 9 August 1 995 the President of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal                    Removal from the register of Case T-15/94 (')
from the register of Case T-555/93 : David Alwyn Jones v.                                       ( 95 /C 299/44 )
Council of the European Union .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
                                                                      By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-15/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                       of 9 August 1995
in Case T-5 85/93 : Stichting Greenpeace Council
( Greenpeace International ) and Others v. Commission of
                the European Communities (')
                        (Inadmissibility)                                   Removal from the register of Case T- 18/94 (')
                         ( 95/C 299/43 )                                                        ( 95 /C 299/45 )
               (Language of the case: English)                                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
In Case T-585/93 , Stichting Greenpeace Council                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
( Greenpeace International ), Domingo Viera Gonzalez ,                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Pablo Guedes Garcia , Jose Ignacio Trojaola Chavez, Aurora           T- 1 8/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
Gonzalez Gonzalez, Pedro Melián Castro, Caridad Sanchez               Communities .
Artiles, Jose Juan Melián Melián , Carmen Guadalupe
Gomez Castro , Clara Donate Hernandez , Balbina Martin                (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Espínola , Jose Hernandez Morin , German Peña Hernandez ,
Antonio Cabrera Expósito, Valentin Hernandez Vaquero ,
Peter Reinhard , Julio Gonzalez Dominguez, Tagoror
Ecologista Alternativo and Comisión Canaria contra la
Contaminación , represented by Philippe Sands and Mark
Hoskins, Barristers, of the Bar of England and Wales ,                      Removal from the register of Case T-19/94 (')
instructed by Leigh , Day & Co ., Solicitors with an address                                    ( 95/C 299/46 )
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean-Paul
Noesen , 18 Rue des Glacis, against Commission of the                               (Language of the case: French)
European Communities ( Agent: David Gilmour ), supported
by Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto Navarro Gonzalez               By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) — application for annulment of the            Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
decision alleged to have been adopted by the Commission               Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
between 7 March 1991 and 29 October 1993 to disburse to              T-19/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the European
the Kingdom of Spain a sum of the order of ECU 1 1 000 000            Communities .
or 12 000 000 pursuant to Decision C(91 ) 440 concerning
financial assistance provided by the European Regional                (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Development Fund for the construction of two power
stations in the Canary Islands ( Gran Canaria and Tenerife )
— the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ), composed of
J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, A. Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili ,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 August                       Removal from the register of Case T-69/94 (')
1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/47 )
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                                  ( Language of the case: French)
2 . the applicants shall jointly and severally bear the               By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
     costs ;                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Case C-109/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Laboratoires Lyocentre v Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus, Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Medical devices — Directive 93/42/EEC — Medicinal products for human use — Directive 2001/83/EC — Right of the competent national authority to classify as a medicinal product for human use a product marketed in another Member State as a medical device bearing a CE marking — Applicable procedure)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/22

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Laboratoires Lyocentre v Lääkealan turvallisuus- ja kehittämiskeskus, Sosiaali- ja terveysalan lupa- ja valvontavirasto
   (Case C-109/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Medical devices - Directive 93/42/EEC - Medicinal products for human use - Directive 2001/83/EC - Right of the competent national authority to classify as a medicinal product for human use a product marketed in another Member State as a medical device bearing a CE marking - Applicable procedure)
   2013/C 344/37
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Laboratoires Lyocentre

      Respondents: Lääkealan turvallisuus– ja kehittämiskeskus, Sosiaali– ja terveysalan lupa– ja valvontavirasto

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1) and Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34) — Vaginal preparation containing live lactobacilli — Right of the competent national authority to classify as a medicinal product within the meaning of Directive 2001/83, on the basis of its pharmacological, immunological or metabolic effects, a preparation marketed in another Member State as a medical device with a CE marking within the meaning of Directive 93/42 — Applicable procedure

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The classification of a product in one Member State as a medical device bearing a CE marking, in accordance with Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, does not preclude the competent authorities of another Member State from classifying the same product, on the basis of its pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action, as a medicinal product within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006.

               2.

               In order to classify as a medicinal product in accordance with Directive 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 1901/2006, a product already classified in another Member State as a medical device bearing a CE marking, in accordance with Directive 93/42, as amended by Directive 2007/47, the competent authorities of a Member State must, before applying the classification procedure under Directive 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 1901/2006, apply the procedure under Article 18 of Directive 93/42, as amended by Directive 2007/47, and, where appropriate, the procedure under Article 8 of Directive 93/42.

               3.

               Within the same Member State, a product which, while not identical to another product classified as a medicinal product, none the less has in common with it an identical substance and the same mode of action, cannot, in principle, be marketed as a medical device in accordance with Directive 93/42, as amended by Directive 2007/47, unless, as a result of another characteristic that is specific to that product and relevant for the purposes of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 93/42, it must be classified and marketed as a medical device, which is a matter for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.


title: Case T-7/15: Action brought on 8 January 2015  — Leopard v OHIM — Smart Market (LEOPARD true racing)

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/24

         Action brought on 8 January 2015 — Leopard v OHIM — Smart Market (LEOPARD true racing)
   (Case T-7/15)
   (2015/C 081/31)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Leopard SA (Howald, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Lê Dai, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Smart Market, SLU (Alcantarilla, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘LEOPARD true racing’ — Application for registration No 10 139 202

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 October 2014 in Case R 1866/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in part the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-117/14: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid — Spain) — Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava v Jose María Ariza Toledano (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — National legislation providing for an employment contract of indefinite duration with a probationary period of one year — Implementation of EU law — None — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/13

      Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid — Spain) — Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava v Jose María Ariza Toledano
      (Case C-117/14) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - National legislation providing for an employment contract of indefinite duration with a probationary period of one year - Implementation of EU law - None - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
      (2015/C 107/17)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Referring court

      Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Grima Janet Nisttahuz Poclava

         Defendant: Jose María Ariza Toledano

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social No 23 de Madrid (Spain) by decision of 4 March 2014.

         (1)  OJ C 151, 19.5.2014.


title: Case C-72/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) Leipzig (Germany) lodged on 13 February 2012 — Gemeinde Altrip (Municipality of Altrip), Gebrüder Hört GbR, Willi Schneider v Rhineland-Palatinate

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) Leipzig (Germany) lodged on 13 February 2012 — Gemeinde Altrip (Municipality of Altrip), Gebrüder Hört GbR, Willi Schneider v Rhineland-Palatinate
   (Case C-72/12)
   2012/C 133/28
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) Leipzig

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gemeinde Altrip (Municipality of Altrip), Gebrüder Hört GbR, Willi Schneider

      Defendant: Rhineland-Palatinate

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 6(1) of Directive 2003/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC (2) and 96/61/EC to be interpreted as meaning that Member States were required to declare the rules of national law adopted to implement Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC applicable also to those official permit procedures which had been initiated before 25 June 2005 but in which the permits were not issued until after that date?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
               Is Article 10a of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, to be interpreted as meaning that Member States were required to extend the applicability of the rules of national law adopted in implementation of Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC for the purpose of challenging the procedural legality of a decision to include cases in which an environmental impact assessment was carried out but was incorrect?

               3.

               If Question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
               In cases in which, in accordance with Article 10a(1)(b) of Directive 85/337/EEC, the administrative procedural law of a Member State lays down in principle that access to a judicial review procedure for members of the public concerned is conditional upon maintaining the impairment of a right, is Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC to be interpreted as meaning

                           (a)

                           that a challenge before a court to the procedural legality of decisions to which the provisions of this Directive on public participation are applicable can be successful and lead to the decision being set aside only if, in the circumstances of the case, there is a definite possibility that the contested decision would have been different without the procedural error and if, at the same time, the procedural error affected a substantive legal position to which the applicant was entitled, or

                           (b)

                           that, in a challenge before a court to procedural legality, procedural errors in decisions to which the provisions of the Directive on public participation are applicable must be considerable on a wider scale?

                     If it is necessary to answer the above question as in b):
               Which substantive requirements should apply to procedural errors, in order for these to be taken into account in challenges before a court to the procedural legality of the decision in favour of an applicant?

      (1)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission. (OJ L 156, p. 17).

      (2)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. (OJ L 175, p. 40).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 6 February 1996 in Case C-457/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht): Kuratorium für Dialyse und Nierentransplantation e. V. v. Johanna Lewark (Indirect discrimination against women workers - Compensation for attendance at training courses providing staff council members with the necessary knowledge for performing their functions)

text:
No C 133/2             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   4 . 5 . 96
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 6 February 1996                                                  of 13 February 1996
in Case C-457/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from            in Case C-143/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesarbeitsgericht ): Kuratorium für Dialyse und                the Tariefcommissie, Amsterdam ): Gebroeders van Es
     Nierentransplantation e. V. v. Johanna Lewark (')                Douane Agenten BV v. Inspecteuer der Invoerrechten en
 (Indirect discrimination against women workers —                                                 Accijnzen (')
 Compensation for attendance at training courses providing             (Effect of the repeal of a Council Regulation on a
staff council members with the necessary knowledge for                 Commission Regulation concerning customs classification
                  performing their functions)                         adopted on the basis of the former Regulation —
                           ( 96/C 133/02 )                             Commission's discretionary powers when drawing up a
                                                                                classification Regulation)
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/03 )
                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutcb)
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-457/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Labour Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                     published in the European Court Reports)
pending before that court between Kuratorium für Dialyse
und Nierentransplantation e . V. and Johanna Lewark — on
the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and of
Council Directive 75/ 117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the              In Case C- 143/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to            of the EC Treaty from the Tariefcommissie ( Administrative
the application of the principle of equal pay for men and             Court for Customs and Excise ), Amsterdam, for a
women ( OJ No L 45 , 1975 , p . 19 ) — the Court, composed            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris,               court between Gebroeders van Es Douane Agenten BV and
D. A. O. Edward , J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents        Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen — on the
of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler,                     interpretation and validity of Commission Regulation
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann ,            ( EEC ) No 482/74 of 27 February 1974 on the classification
J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm ,               of goods within subheading No 23.04 B of the Common
Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl ,                  Customs Tariff ( OJ No L 57, 1974, p . 23 ) — the
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
judgment on 6 February 1996 , in which is rules :                     President, C. N. Kakouris, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini,
                                                                      F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ,
                                                                      P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann,
Where the category of part-time workers includes a much               H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
higher number of women than men , the prohibition of                 Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
indirect discrimination in the matter of pay, as set out in          judgment on 13 February 1996 , in which it rules :
Article 119 of the EC Treaty and in Council Directive
71 /1 1 7/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the application of
the principle of equal pay for men and women, precludes
national legislation which, not being suitable and necessary         Since Commission Regulation (EEC) No 482/74 of
                                                                     27 February 1974 on the classification of goods within
for achieving a legitimate social policy aim, has the effect of
                                                                     subheading 23.04 B ofthe Common Customs Tariffwas not
limiting to their individual working hours the compensation
                                                                     amended by the Commission in accordance with the second
which staff council members employed on a part-time basis
                                                                     subparagraph of Article 15 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation
are to receive from their employer for attending training
                                                                     No 2658/87, it cannot be applied to declarations concerning
courses which impart the knowledge necessary for serving
                                                                     importations after 1 January 1988 inasmuch as that failure
on staff councils and are held during the full-time working
                                                                     to amend the former Regulation prevents individuals from
hours applicable in the undertaking but which exceed
                                                                     determining its precise scope.
their individual part-time working hours, when staff
council members employed on a full-time basis receive
compensation for attendance at the same courses on the
basis of their full-time working hours.                               (') OJ No C 135 , 14 . 5 . 1993 .
C ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .


title: Case T-722/13: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014  — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV) (Community trade mark — Application for revocation — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/8

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — The Directv Group v OHIM — Bolloré (DIRECTV)
   (Case T-722/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for revocation - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 361/09
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Directv Group, Inc. (El Segundo, United States) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Bolloré (Ergué Gabéric, France) (represented by: S. Legrand, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2013 (Case R 1960/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Bolloré and The Directv Group, Inc.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the defendant and the intervener.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case C-82/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 19 February 2013 — Società cooperativa Madonna dei Miracoli v Regione Abruzzo, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 19 February 2013 — Società cooperativa Madonna dei Miracoli v Regione Abruzzo, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali
   (Case C-82/13)
   2013/C 147/15
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Società cooperativa Madonna dei Miracoli

      Respondents: Regione Abruzzo, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it the case that the European Commission has cancelled the grant of the Community contribution and what was the decision adopted?
               In the alternative:

               2.

               What legal effect is to be attached to the Commission’s failure to act, as a result of which the Community contribution was not paid?

               3.

               Does the Commission’s failure to act by non-disbursement of the Community contribution preclude the application of Article 42(a) of Abruzzo Regional Law 31/82, under which the appellant was granted the regional contribution ancillary to the Community contribution and, consequently, [does that failure] preclude payment of the regional contribution?
               At all events:

               4.

               What are the obligations incumbent on the Italian State in the case of the European Commission’s persistent failure to act?


title: Case C-316/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisance — Treatment of urban waste water)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-316/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Treatment of urban waste water)
   (2008/C 285/07)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 4(1) and (3) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40) — Failure to ensure that the waste water from a number of agglomerations is made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before entering collecting systems (agglomerations of Bray, Howth, Letterkenny, Shanganagh, Sligo and Tramore, County Waterford)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing, first, in respect of discharges from the agglomerations known as IE22, Bray, IE31, Howth, IE34, Letterkenny, IE40, Shanganagh, IE41, Sligo, and IE45, Tramore, County Waterford, to ensure that, before discharge, waste water entering collecting systems was made subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment at the latest by 31 December 2000 and by failing, second, to ensure that the discharge of that waste water satisfied the relevant requirements of Annex I.B to Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment by the said deadline, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (3) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.