title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 24 November 1997 in Case T-266/94 (92): Foreningen af Jernskibs- og Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsværftsforeningen and others v. Commission of the European Communities (State aids - Shipbuilding - Taxation of costs)

text:
C 26/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.1.98
    additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation         AssimileÂes de Wallonie ASBL (FeÂd. Horeca-Wallonie),
    (EEC) No 804/68, in so far as those Regulations did             established in Namur (Belgium), represented by Gilles
    not make provision for the allocation of a reference            BouneÂou, of the Luxembourg Bar, and by Jean Materne
    quantity to holdings subject to an undertaking given            and Alain Bernard, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for
    under Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of                    service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Gilles BouneÂou,
    17 May 1977 introducing a system of premiums for                15 Avenue du Bois, against Commission of the European
    the non-marketing of milk and milk products and for             Communities (Agent: GeÂrard Rozet) Ð application,
    the conversion of dairy herds, where the producers              primarily, for the annulment of the Commission decision,
    had not delivered milk during the reference year                addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium by letter SG(96) D/
    adopted by the Member State concerned, and, second,             8253 of 24 September 1996, not to raise any objection to
    as a result of application of the same Regulation               the implementation by the Wallonia region of a draft
    (EEC) No 857/84, as amended by Council Regulation               decree on social tourism Ð the Court of First Instance
    (EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March 1989, in so far as the              (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
    second indent of Article 3a(1) excluded the allocation          A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. P. BrieÈt, C. W. Bellamy,
    of a special reference quantity to the transferees              A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
    of a premium granted under Regulation (EEC)                     made an order on 20 November 1997 in which it:
    No 1078/77;
                                                                    1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
2. declares that the period for which the applicants must
    be compensated for the damage suffered as a result of
    the application of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 is, in            2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
    Case T-195/94, the period from 12 January 1989 to
    28 July 1993 and, in Case T-202/94, the period from
                                                                    (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
    3 September 1987 to 31 January 1993;
3. orders the parties to forward to the Court, within 12
    months from this judgment, details of the amounts to
    be paid, as agreed by the parties;
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
4. orders the parties, if no agreement is reached, to                          (First Chamber, Extended Composition)
    submit to the Court their views as to the amounts
                                                                                of 24 November 1997
    which should be awarded;
                                                                    in Case T-266/94 (92): Foreningen af Jernskibs- og
                                                                    Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsvñrftsforeningen and
5. reserves the costs.                                                 others v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (State aids Ð Shipbuilding Ð Taxation of costs)
(1) OJ C 188, 9.7.1994 and OJ C 218, 6.8.1994.
                                                                                (98/C 26/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    In Case T-266/94 (92): Foreningen of Jernskibs- og
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    Maskinbyggerier i Danmark, Skibsvñrftsforeningen, with
                    of 20 November 1997                             its registered office in Copenhagen, Assens Skibsvñrft A/S,
                                                                    established in Assens (Denmark), Burmeister & Wain
in Case T-85/97: Interprovinciale des FeÂdeÂrations                 Skibsvñrft A/S, established in Copenhagen, Danyard A/S,
d'Hoteliers, Restaurateurs, Cafetiers et Entreprises                established in Frederikshavn (Denmark), Fredericia
AssimileÂes de Wallonie ASBL (FeÂd. Horeca-Wallonie) v.             Skibsvñrft A/S, established in Fredericia (Denmark),
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                   Odense Staalskibsvñrft A/S, established in Odense
(Procedure Ð Time limits Ð Method of calculation Ð                  (Denmark), Svendborg Vñrft A/S, established in
                        Inadmissibility)                            Svendborg         (Denmark),       érskov       Christensens
                                                                    Staalskibsvñrft A/S, established in Frederikshavn, and
                         (98/C 26/11)                               Aarhus Flydedok A/S, established in rhus (Denmark),
                                                                    represented by Jan-Erik Svensson, advokat of the
                                                                    Copenhagen Bar, with an address for service in
               (Language of the case: French)                       Luxembourg at the chambers of Philippe Dupont, 8Ð10
                                                                    Rue Mathias Hardt, supported by the Kingdom of
                                                                    Denmark (Agent: Peter Biering) against the Commission of
In Case T-85/97: Interprovinciale des             FeÂdeÂrations     the European Communities (Agents: Anders Christian
d'Hoteliers, Restaurateurs, Cafetiers et           Entreprises      Jessen and Ben Smulders), supported by the Federal
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 26/7
Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder, Bernd Kloke              2. The applicant is ordered to pay all the costs of the
and, at the hearing, Michael Schütte) and by MTW                       application for interim relief.
Schiffswerft GmbH, (formerly Meerestechnik Werft), with
its registered office at Wismar (Germany), represented by
Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwälte,             3. Each party is to bear its own costs in respect of the
Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  application for a declaration of failure to act.
the chambers of FrancËois Turk, 13B Avenue Guillaume Ð
application for taxation of the costs to be paid by the
                                                                   (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
applicants to the intervener, MTW Schiffswerft GmbH,
following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
22 October 1996 in Case T-266/94 Skibsvñrftsforeningen
a.O. v. Commission [1996] ECR II-1399 Ð the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of A. Saggio, President, B. Vesterdorf, C. W.
Bellamy, R. M. Moura Ramos and J. Pirrung, Judges; H.
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 24 November 1997, the            Action brought on 10 November 1997 by Peter Cain
operative part of which is as follows:                                against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-289/97)
The total amount of costs to be paid by the applicants to                                   (98/C 26/14)
the intervener MTW Schiffswerft GmbH is fixed at
DM 125 000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
( ) OJ C 254, 10.9.1994.
 1
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 10 November
                                                                   1997 by Peter Cain, residing at Trier (Federal Republic of
                                                                   Germany), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry
                                                                   Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                   the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                    of 26 November 1997                            Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30
                                                                   Rue de Cessange.
in Case T-39/97: T. Port GmbH & Co v. Commission of
                the European Communities (1)
(Agriculture Ð Common organization of the markets Ð                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Bananas Ð Request for the issue of additional import
licences Ð Action for declaration of failure to act Ð
      Procedure by default Ð No need to adjudicate)                Ð annul the decision of 12 March 1997 appointing the
                                                                       applicant, with effect from 1 February 1997, to grade
                         (98/C 26/13)
                                                                       LA 7, step 3 within the translators' career bracket,
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
In Case T-39/97: T. Port GmbH & Co, established in
Hamburg (Germany), represented by Gert Meier,                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden, 24 Rue
Marie-Adelaïde, against Commission of the European                 By decision of 26 February 1996, which took effect
Communities (Agents: Dierk Booû, Klaus-Dieter                      retroactively on 1 January 1996, the applicant was
Borchardt and Hubert van Vliet) Ð application for a                appointed a probationer official in grade LA 7, step 1 and
declaration pursuant to Article 175 of the Treaty that the         assigned to the Translation Service, Directorate G Ð
Commission has failed to take a position on the                    Eurostat, information and innovation, credit and
applicant's request of 16 December 1996 for the issue of           investments, Publications Office and ECSC, English
additional import licences as a transitional measure under         Language Unit, in Luxembourg. He was established in his
the common organization of the markets in the banana               post by decision of 28 October 1996, which took effect on
sector Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),             1 November 1996.
composed of P. Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D.
Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order the
operative part of which is as follows:                             The act complained of is the decision of 12 March 1997
                                                                   annulling and replacing that of 26 February 1996, by
                                                                   which the appointing authority appointed the applicant a
1. There is no need to adjudicate.                                 probationer official in grade LA 7, step 3.


title: Case T-257/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  7 October 2005  — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 October 2005 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM
   (Case T-257/05) (1)

   (2006/C 22/53)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 23 April 2002 in Case C-290/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret): Niels Nygård v Svineafgiftsfonden, intervener: Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri (National levy on pigs — Charge having an equivalent effect — Internal taxation — Levy scheme authorised by the Commission as State aid compatible with the common market — Levy incompatible with provisions of the EC Treaty other than Articles 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) and 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 EC) — Discretion of the national courts)

text:
C 144/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         15.6.2002
6.    Annuls note 2 to the 9th heading concerning anchovy in               Nygård and Svineafgiftsfonden, intervener: Ministeriet for
      Annex I D to Council Regulation (EC) No 2848/2000 of                 Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri, on the interpretation of
      15 December 2000 fixing for 2001 the fishing opportunities           Article 9 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 23
      and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of      EC), Article 12 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
      fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Com-            Article 25 EC), Article 16 of the EC Treaty (repealed by the
      munity vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required;   Treaty of Amsterdam), Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now
                                                                           Article 88 EC), and Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                           amendment, Article 90 EC), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
7.    Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;           composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Second Chamber,
                                                                           acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann,
                                                                           R. Schintgen, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J. N. Cunha Rodri-
8.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear            gues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
      its own costs.                                                       has given a judgment on 23 April 2002, in which it has ruled:
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.
                                                                           1.   A levy charged by a body established under public law according
                                                                                to identical criteria on pigs produced in a Member State for
                                                                                slaughter on the domestic market or for live export to other
                                                                                Member States, the revenue from which is allocated to activities
                                                                                benefiting the two types of production, does not fall under the
                                                                                prohibition of charges having equivalent effect to customs duties
                                                                                on exports within the meaning of Article 9 of the EC Treaty
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         (now, after amendment, Article 23 EC), Article 12 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 25 EC) and Article 16
                                                                                of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam). Such
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                       a levy may, however, be classified as discriminatory internal
                                                                                taxation prohibited by Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                                amendment, Article 90 EC) if and to the extent to which the
                            23 April 2002                                       advantages deriving from the use made of its revenue compensate
                                                                                in part the charge imposed on pigs produced for slaughter in
                                                                                the Member State concerned, thereby placing at a disadvantage
in Case C-290/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                                the production of pigs for live export to other Member States.
the Vestre Landsret): Niels Nygård v Svineafgiftsfonden,
intervener: Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fis-
                                keri (1)
(National levy on pigs — Charge having an equivalent effect
                                                                           2.   The fact that a national levy is intended to finance an aid
— Internal taxation — Levy scheme authorised by the
                                                                                scheme authorised by the Commission pursuant to the Treaty
Commission as State aid compatible with the common
market — Levy incompatible with provisions of the EC                            provisions on State aid does not preclude a national court from
                                                                                examining whether such a levy is compatible with other directly
Treaty other than Articles 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                                effective Treaty provisions.
amendment, Article 87 EC) and 93 of the EC Treaty (now
     Article 88 EC) — Discretion of the national courts)
                           (2002/C 144/02)
                    (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-234/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Niels


title: Case T-223/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Ewald Dörken v OHIM — Schürmann (VENT ROLL) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark VENT ROLL — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 52(1) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Ewald Dörken v OHIM — Schürmann (VENT ROLL)
   (Case T-223/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark VENT ROLL - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 52(1) and Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 016/37)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Ewald Dörken AG (Herdecke, Germany) (represented by: N. Grüger, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Wolfram Schürmann (Neuhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Wesle, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2014 (Case R2156/2012-4) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mr Wolfram Schürmann and Ewald Dörken AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ewald Dörken AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.


4.5.2002              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 109/41
       Removal from the register of Case C-115/01 (1)                ruling by the Employment Tribunal, Leeds (United Kingdom)):
                                                                     P. Breckon and M. Barrett v Secretary of State for Employment.
                        (2002/C 109/78)
                                                                     (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
By order of 17 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-115/01: Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-183/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 109/81)
                                                                     By order of 8 January 2002 the President of the Court of
       Removal from the register of Case    C-127/01 (1)             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-183/01: Commission of the
                        (2002/C 109/79)                              European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
By order of 30 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-127/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-382/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/82)
       Removal from the register of Case C-137/01 (1)                By order of 6 February 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                        (2002/C 109/80)                              from the register of Case C-382/01: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                     and Northern Ireland.
By order of 16 January 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-137/01 (Reference for a preliminary      (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Aalborg Portland A/S against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-44/95)

text:
22 . 4 . 95             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 101 / 17
           applicant bears no relation to the facts upon which       Substantive defects
           it relies;
                                                                     The Commission erred in its demarcation of the relevant
       3 , the Commission erred in its determination of the
                                                                     geographical markets; for that reason alone, its findings
           basis on which the fine was to be imposed .               regarding restriction of competition were incorrect.
                                                                     The Commission sought to bracket together all agreements
                                                                     and practices into a 'single and continuing agreement',
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Heidelberger                   without stating any reasons therefor . In so doing, it
Zement Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the              construed — wrongly in law — a network of ostensible
                      European Communities                           connections, and thus of possible imputations.
                          (Case T-42/95 )                            The conduct of other undertakings or associations of
                           ( 95/C 101 /35                            undertakings cannot be imputed to the applicant as regards
                                                                     membership of an association of undertakings .
                 (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     The Commission is unable to prove the existence of any
An action against the Commission of the European                     'agreement on non-transhipment to domestic markets'. The
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    Commission has no evidence to show that the information
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February                  emerging from the meetings between the Head Delegates
1995 by Heidelberger Zement Aktiengesellschaft of                    was passed on to, and acted upon by, the applicant. No
Heidelberg ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by            evidence has been adduced to show that the duration of any
Rainer Bechtold, Rechtsanwalt, Stuttgart, and Hans-Jorg              agreement extended beyond 10 June 1985 .
Niemeyer, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &                    Nor is the Commission able to prove the existence of any
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe .                                              agreement or concerted practice restricting cross-border
                                                                     trade between Germany and France.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul, pursuant to the second paragraph of Articles 173            The Commission's allegation regarding participation in
     and 174 of the EC Treaty, the Decision of the                   agreements for the setting-up of the European Task Force
     Commission of 30 November 1994 ( Cases IV/33.126                ( ETF ) and a joint trading company, and in concerted
     and 33.322 — Cement), in so far as it concerns the              practices designed to withdraw Calcestruzzi as a customer
     applicant,                                                      from the Greek producers, are based solely on the presence
                                                                     of Heidelberger Zement at a meeting in Rome . Nothing
— in the alternative, pursuant to Article 17 of Regulation           impermissible was discussed or predetermined at that
     No 17 of 6 February 1962, vary Article 9 of the decision,       meeting. The Commission is unable to adduce any other
     in so far as it concerns the applicant, so as to cancel or      evidence .
     considerably reduce the fine imposed on the
     applicant,                                                      The Commission has not given reasons for the size of the
                                                                     fine imposed on the applicant. Furthermore, it has failed to
— order the Commission, pursuant to Article 87 ( 2 ) of the          fulfil its obligation to determine the amount of fines on an
     Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, to pay       individual basis, in that it failed to take into consideration
     the costs of the proceedings necessarily incurred by the        the individual conduct of Heidelberger Zement and its
     applicant.                                                      position within the alleged cartel . Consequently, the fine has
                                                                     been invalidly imposed .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Procedural defects
The applicant objects that the statement of objections
communicated to it was incomplete and unclear . It was
expressed in such blanket terms ('the European cement
producers ') that the applicant was unable to identify               Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Aalborg
specifically which aspects of its conduct were the subject of        Portland A/S against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
complaint.
                                                                                ( Case T-44/95 )
The grant of access to the documentation was dealt with in a
                                                                                ( 95/C 101 /36 )
discriminatory way. It was limited merely to part of the
documentation, without adequate reasons being given.
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: Danish)
From the outset, the periods prescribed for replying to the
statement of objections were too short.
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
At the oral hearing, the applicant's right to participate, and       Communities was brought before the Court of First
to an even greater extent its right to make oral statements,         Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
was restricted .                                                     1995 by Aalborg Portland A/S, Aalborg (Denmark),
 ---pagebreak--- No C 101 /18          EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 4 . 95
represented by Karen Dyekj aer-Hansen, of the Copenhagen                     purpose in this was to prevent incursions by the other
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        members on the applicant's own market.
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                             The applicant also argues that the Decision breaches
                                                                             essential procedural requirements which must be complied
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  with when a fine is imposed under Regulation No 17/62 of
                                                                             the Council and that it is also contrary to Article 190 of the
1 , annul Articles 1 , 2, 4 ( 1 ) and ( 3 ) (a ), 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 and 12 of   EC Treaty in so far as it is inadequately reasoned.
     the Commission Decision of 30 November 1994
     relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
     Treaty (IV/33.126 and 33.322 — Cement) in so far as
     those articles relate to the applicant;
                                                                             Action brought on 20 February 1995 by Alsen-Breitenburg
2, in the alternative, annul the fine imposed on the                         Zement- und Kalkwerke GmbH against the Commission of
     applicant;                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-45/95 )
3 , in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
     applicant;                                                                                ( 95/C 101/37)
4, order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.                                        (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                             Instance of the European Communities on 20 February
In support of its pleas in law, the applicant submits that it                1995 by Alsen-Breitenburg Zement- und Kalkwerke GmbH
has not infringed Article 85 of the EC Treaty. The Decision                  of Hamburg ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented
is thus at variance with that provision and with Articles 3                  by Karlheinz Moosecker and Martin Klusmann,
and 15 of Regulation No 17/62 of the Council in so far as                    Rechtsanwàlte, Diisseldorf, with an address for service in
it involves an incorrect application of law and draws                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 62
inaccurate conclusions from the evidence. The applicant                      Avenue Guillaume .
submits in this regard that it did not participate in an
agreement designed to ensure non-transhipment to home                      . The applicant claims that the Court should:
markets and to regulate cement transfers from one country
to another.                                                                  1 , annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission of
                                                                                30 November 1994 ( Cases IV/33.126 and 33.322 —
The applicant acknowledges that it participated in three                           Cement), served on the applicant on 13 December 1994
meetings during the period 1983 to 1984 but states that no                         and 3 February 1995 , in so far as it concerns the
agreement was concluded at those meetings . Nor can it be                          applicant;
regarded as proved that the applicant exchanged market                             in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the
information at those meetings. Even if the applicant's silent                      applicant to a reasonable sum corresponding to the real
presence were to be regarded as blameworthy, that                                  significance of the influence on competition forming the
participation is one single event which took place long                            subject-matter of the proceeding, the period of time to
before the limitation period laid down in Regulation ( EEC )                       which the objections regarding the ECEC relate and the
No 2988/74 and before the applicant company was                                    involvement of the applicant in the matter;
formed .
                                                                             2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
The applicant routinely sent non-contemporaneous
information on prices approved by the Danish Monopoly                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Control Authorities to Cembureau — The European
Cement Association and obtained processed information                        The applicant complains from a procedural standpoint that
from it. This is normal practice within the sector and the                   the defendant:
information was not submitted or received with the
intention or request that it should affect the conduct of other              (a ) permanently impaired the applicant's ability to
cement producers . In particular, there is no basis for the                         exonerate itself, by failing to effect complete service of
assumption that this information bore any relation to the                           the statement of objections and by failing to formulate
meetings referred to in Article 1 of the Decision.                                  the same with adequate precision ( first head of
                                                                                claim );
It cannot be regarded as established that the applicant took                 ( b ) seriously impeded the applicant's defence during the
part in an agreement to establish a European Task Force or                          administrative procedure and following the issue of the
that it participated in any arrangement connected with the                          decision by allowing only limited inspection of the
Italian construction company Calcestruzzi.                                          documentation in the file (second head of claim );
The applicant does not deny having been a member of the                      (c ) rendered it more difficult to reply to the statement of
European Cement Export Committee but does deny that its                             objections within the prescribed period by failing to


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2005 in Case T-81/04 Bouygues SA and Bouygues Telecom v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Mobile telephony — Complaint — Action in respect of a failure to act — Definition of position by the Commission bringing an end to the failure to act — No need to give a ruling — Action for annulment — Interim letter — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/29

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 February 2005
   in Case T-81/04 Bouygues SA and Bouygues Telecom v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Mobile telephony - Complaint - Action in respect of a failure to act - Definition of position by the Commission bringing an end to the failure to act - No need to give a ruling - Action for annulment - Interim letter - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 132/52)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-81/04: Bouygues SA, established in Paris (France), and Bouygues Telecom, established in Boulogne-Billancourt (France), represented by B. Amory and A. Verheyden, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J.L. Buendía Sierra, C. Giolito and M. Niejahr, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — principally, an application under Article 232 EC for a declaration that, by not defining its position on the head of complaint, set out in the applicants' formal complaint, relating to the aid granted by the French authorities to Orange France and SFR in the form of a retroactive reduction in the royalty payments due in respect of the UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) licence granted to those undertakings, the Commission failed to take a decision, contrary to the EC Treaty, and, in the alternative, an application based on Article 230 EC for annulment of the decision rejecting that head of complaint in the formal complaint allegedly contained in a letter of 11 December 2003 sent by the Commission to the applicants — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 14 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               It is unnecessary to rule on the pleas in law seeking a declaration that the Commission failed to take a decision on the head of complaint, contained in the applicants' formal complaint, relating to the retroactive reduction of the royalty payments due in respect of the UMTS licence granted to Orange and SFR by the French authorities.

               2.

               The alternative pleas in law seeking annulment of the decision contained in the Commission's letter of 11 December 2003 are rejected as being inadmissible.

               3.

               It is unnecessary to rule on the applications for leave to intervene submitted by Société française du radiotéléphone (SFR) and Orange France SA.

               4.

               Bouygues SA and Bouygues Telecom shall pay half of the costs.

               5.

               The Commission shall pay half of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: Case C-522/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of movement for workers — Freedom to provide services — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Directive 2002/83/EC — Tax legislation providing for less favourable treatment of contributions to occupational pension schemes paid to insurance undertakings established abroad — Taxation in Belgium of capital and surrender values paid to beneficiaries who have transferred their residence abroad — Tax convention preventing double taxation — Representative responsible)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-522/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of movement for workers - Freedom to provide services - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Directive 2002/83/EC - Tax legislation providing for less favourable treatment of contributions to occupational pension schemes paid to insurance undertakings established abroad - Taxation in Belgium of capital and surrender values paid to beneficiaries who have transferred their residence abroad - Tax convention preventing double taxation - Representative responsible)
   (2007/C 199/06)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: E. Dominkovits and M. Wimmer, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Breach of Articles 18, 39, 43, 49 and 56 of the EC Treaty, of Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement, and of Articles 5(1) and 53(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance (OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1) — Tax legislation providing for less favourable treatment of the contributions to occupational retirement schemes paid to insurance undertakings established abroad, taxation in Belgium of the capital and surrender values paid to recipients who have transferred their residence abroad and the obligation for those undertakings to have a representative residing in Belgium in order to guarantee payment of the annual tax on insurance contracts
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

                           —

                           By making the deductibility of employers' insurance contributions supplementary pension and life assurance subject to the condition, laid down in Article 59 of the Income Tax Code 1992 consolidated by the Royal Decree of 10 April 1992, as amended by the Law of 28 April 2003 on supplementary pensions and the tax regime applying thereto and to certain additional social security advantages, that those contributions be paid to an insurance undertaking or welfare fund established in Belgium;

                           —

                           by making the tax reduction for long-term savings, granted by virtue of Articles 145/1 and 145/3 of the Income Tax Code 1992, as amended by the Law of 28 April 2003, for personal supplementary pension and life assurance contributions and premiums paid in the form of deductions made by the employer from the employee's remuneration, or in the form of deductions made by the undertaking from the remuneration of a director who is not under a contract of employment, subject to the condition that those contributions and premiums be paid to an insurance undertaking or welfare fund established in Belgium;

                           —

                           by providing, in Article 364a of the Income Tax Code 1992, as amended by the Law of 28 April 2003, that, when capital, surrender values and savings referred to in Article 34 of the Income Tax Code 1992 are paid or allocated to a taxpayer who has previously transferred his residence or the primary location of his assets abroad, the payment or allocation is deemed to have taken place on the day preceding that transfer, and by treating, pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 364a, in the same way as an allocation any transfer referred to in Article 34(2)(3), so that every insurer is under an obligation to withhold amounts in respect of income tax, in accordance with Article 270 of the Code, from capital and surrender values paid to a non-resident who has been, at one time or another, resident for tax purposes in Belgium, in so far as those sums have been built up, entirely, or partially, during the period in which the person concerned was a Belgian resident for tax purposes, even though bilateral tax agreements concluded by the Kingdom of Belgium grant the right to tax such income to another Contracting State;

                           —

                           by levying tax, pursuant to Article 364b of the Income Tax Code 1992, as amended by the Law of 28 April 2003, on transfers of capital or surrender values built up by means of employers' contributions or personal contributions for supplementary retirement benefits, where the transfer is made by the pension fund or insurance institution with which the capital or surrender values have been built up in favour of the beneficiary or persons entitled through him, to another pension fund or insurance institution established outside Belgium, while such a transfer does not constitute a taxable transaction if the capital or surrender values are transferred to another pension fund or insurance institution established in Belgium;

                           —

                           by requiring, on the basis of Article 224/2a of the General Regulation on taxes assimilated to stamp duty resulting from the Royal Decree of 3 March 1927, as amended by the Royal Decree of 30 July 1994, foreign insurers who have no place of business in Belgium to obtain authorisation, before providing their services in Belgium, for a representative residing in Belgium, who must personally assume, in writing, responsibility towards the State for paying the annual tax on insurance contracts, interest and fines which may be due in respect of contracts relating to risks situated in Belgium,

                     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC, Articles 28, 31 and 36 of the Agreement establishing the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 and Article 4 of Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive), following revision, Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance.

               2.

               The remainder of the action is dismissed.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.


title: Case T-758/15: Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — EDF Toruń v ECHA (REACH — Fee for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to SMEs — Error in the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Legitimate expectations — Proportionality — Calculation criteria of the amount of the administrative charge)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 July 2017 — EDF Toruń v ECHA
   (Case T-758/15) (1)

   ((REACH - Fee for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to SMEs - Error in the declaration relating to the size of the enterprise - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Calculation criteria of the amount of the administrative charge))
   (2017/C 283/54)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: EDF Toruń SA (Toruń, Poland) (represented by: K. Sienkiewicz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (represented by: J.-P. Trnka, C. Schultheiss and M. Heikkilä, acting as Agents, and C. Garcia Molyneux, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU, seeking first, the annulment of Decision SME(2015) 4950 of the ECHA of 3 November 2015 which states that the applicant does not fulfil the conditions to receive a reduction of the fee for small enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it and, second, the annulment of invoice No 10054011 issued by the ECHA following the adoption of Decision SME(2015) 4950.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The General Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders EDF Toruń S.A. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: Case C-614/10: Action brought on 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/13

         Action brought on 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-614/10)
   2011/C 72/22
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 28(1) of Directive 95/46/EC because the legal situation in Austria of a Data Protection Commission created as data protection inspection body does not fulfil the criterion of complete independence.

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission is of the opinion that the independence of the Data Protection Commission as inspection body for the control of data protection regulations in Austria is not guaranteed.
   The Data Protection Commission is organisationally closely connected with the Federal Chancellor’s Office (Bundeskanzleramt). The latter supervises the employees of the Data Protection Commission and is also responsible for that commission’s material provisions. Furthermore, an administrative officer of the Federal Chancellor’s Office is responsible for the management of the Data Protection Commission, who is also for the duration of his duties bound by the directions of his supervisor and subject to that supervision. That situation leads to clear conflicts of loyalty and interests.
   Moreover, the Federal Chancellor (Bundeskanzler), who like other public posts is subject to the control of the Data Protection Commission, has a comprehensive right to supervise and instruct that commission. As a result, it is possible for the Federal Chancellor at any time and without any concrete ground to inform himself about all aspects of the management of the Data Protection Commission. There exists thereby the risk that that right could be used in order to exercise political influence.


title: Case C-523/06: Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/17

         Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-523/06)
   (2007/C 42/28)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Huttunen and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to draw up and implement waste reception and handling plans in respect of all ports, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5(1) and 16(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues;

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the Directive expired on 28 December 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 332, p. 81.


C 366/24              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18.12.1999
       Removal from the register of Case C-92/99 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-185/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/43)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/47)
By order of 24 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-92/99: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.                        from the register of Case C-185/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X, Y and
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                          Z.
                                                                   (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-151/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/44)
By order of 28 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-151/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland.                                           Removal from the register of Case C-186/99 (1)
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                                 (1999/C 366/48)
                                                                   By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-186/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling, from the Regeringsrätten): Riksskatteverket v X.
       Removal from the register of Case C-31/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/45)                             (1) OJ No C 204 of 17.7.1999.
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-31/99: Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-210/99 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/49)
       Removal from the register of Case C-32/99 (1)
                       (1999/C 366/46)                             By order of 30 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                   from the register of Case C-210/99: Commission of the
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                   European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-32/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2002 in Case C-430/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Monika Herbstrith v Republic of Austria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 247/2                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                    —    lift the immunity enjoyed by the Commission since the
                                                                                requested attachment does not in any way interfere with
                         of 21 March 2002                                        the independence and functioning of the Communities;
in Case C-430/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   —    declare that the Commission’s accounting officer incor-
the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): Monika                            rectly declared that the Commission has no existing or
              Herbstrith v Republic of Austria (1)                               contingent debts towards the Democratic Republic of the
                                                                                Congo or the Banque Nationale du Congo.
     (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
                          (2002/C 247/02)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
                                                                            Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that Court of
In Case C-430/01: reference to the Court under Article 234                    11 February 2002 in the appeal by Dr Manfred Hückel
EC from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Vienna
Higher Civil Court) (Austria), for a preliminary ruling in
proceedings pending before that court between Monika                                        (Cases C-242/02 and C-243/02)
Herbstrith and the Republic of Austria on whether the failure
to appoint to a post a candidate with the required professional
qualifications infringes a provision of Community law, and on                                       (2002/C 247/04)
the conditions under which a Member State may incur liability
for damage suffered by individuals as a result of infringements
of Community law — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
F. Macken, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, R. Schintgen
(Rapporteur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order              European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
on 21 March 2002, in which it ruled:                                        tungssenat Salzburg (Independent Administrative Chamber for
                                                                            Salzburg) of 11 February 2002, received at the Court Registry
The request for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court of              on 3 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the appeal by
Justice of the European Communities by the Landesgericht für                Dr Manfred Hückel on the following questions:
Zivilrechtssachen Wien, by decision of 12 October 2001, is
inadmissible.                                                               1.   Does Article 2(1)(b) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of
                                                                                18 December 1978 (1) on the approximation of the
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.                                                       laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
                                                                                presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to
                                                                                the ultimate consumer (now consolidated in European
                                                                                Parliament and Council Directive 2000/13/EC of
                                                                                20 March 2000 — OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29), under which
                                                                                — subject to Community provisions applicable to natural
                                                                                mineral waters and to foodstuffs for particular nutritional
Application brought on 22 August 2002 by Antippas for                            uses — the labelling and methods used may not attribute
leave to attach assets held by the Commission of the                             to any foodstuff the property of preventing, treating or
                     European Communities                                        curing a human disease, or suggest that it possesses such
                                                                                properties, preclude national legislation which makes it
                         (Case C-1/02 SA)                                        an offence when marketing foodstuffs:
                          (2002/C 247/03)                                        (a)   to refer to physiological or pharmacological effects,
                                                                                in particular those which preserve youthfulness,
                                                                                inhibit signs of ageing, promote slimming or main-
                                                                                tain health, or to create the impression of any such
An application for leave to attach assets held by the Com-
                                                                                effect;
mission of the European Communities was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on on
22 August 2002 by Antippas, represented by Mario Spandre,                        (b) to refer to case-histories, recommendations made by
lawyer.                                                                                doctors or medical experts’ reports;


title: Action brought on 17 April 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Case C-152/98)

text:
C 258/12              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.8.98
Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís Fernandes and JoaÄo                  EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
Lopes Fernandes) Ð application for a declaration that, by              dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
failing to draw up a systematic plan of action and time-               environment of the Community (1), the Kingdom of the
table for the improvement of surface waters and, in the                Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under
alternative, by failing to inform the Commission forthwith             that Directive and under Article 189 of the EC Treaty;
of such measures, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
Article 189 of the EC Treaty and the provisions of                 (2) orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the
Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning                costs.
the quality required of surface water intended for the
abstraction of drinking water in the Member States (OJ
L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 26) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch and K. M.
Ioannou (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarobo Colomer,
                                                                   The Commission considers that the Kingdom of the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
                                                                   Netherlands has infringed Directive 76/464/EEC (the
judgment on 17 June 1998, in which it:
                                                                   Directive') by failing to lay down quality objectives in
                                                                   relation to certain substances referred to in the Directive.
1. Declares that, by failing to draw up a systematic plan
     of action including a time-table for the improvement          Ð Quality objectives in respect of the substances
     of surface water, the Portuguese Republic has failed to           enumerated in the first indent in List II in the Annex
     fulfil its obligations under Article 4(2) of Council              to the Directive: the fact that no Community limit
     Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the               values have been fixed for certain families and groups
     quality required of surface water intended for the                of substances in List I in the Annex to the Directive
     abstraction of drinking water in the Member States;               means that those substances fall within the scope of
                                                                       List II in that Annex. Moreover, it cannot be inferred
                                                                       from the phrase substances in List I for which the
                                                                       limit values . . . have not been determined' that this
2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       must be done by the giving of express notice. Even if
                                                                       the factual situation was unclear as regards the
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.                                             initiatives of the Commission and the Council or as to
                                                                       whether or not specific Community limit values were
                                                                       to be fixed, that cannot in any way justify the
                                                                       conclusion that a Member State is consequently
                                                                       released from the obligation to establish programmes
                                                                       for those families or groups of substances in
                                                                       accordance with Article 7(1), (2) and (3) of the
                                                                       Directive.
Action brought on 17 April 1998 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                          Netherlands                                  The fixing of emission standards on the basis of the
                                                                       best technical means available does not satisfy the
                        (Case C-152/98)                                requirement of legal certainty, which must be fulfilled
                         (98/C 258/22)                                 whenever directives are transposed.
                                                                   Ð Quality objectives in respect of the substances
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                   enumerated in the second indent in List II in the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                    Annex to the Directive: the Kingdom of the
Communities on 17 April 1998 by the Commission of the                  Netherlands has failed to lay down quality objectives
European Communities, represented by H. van Lier, Legal                for the fourth category referred to therein (organic
Adviser in its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an                 compounds of silicone, etc.) and for certain substances
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos              in the first category (titanium, boron, uranium,
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre.                 tellurium and silver). The legal obligation to transpose
                                                                       the Directive into national law is not removed,
                                                                       however, by the possible existence of practical
                                                                       difficulties, especially since other Member States have
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            managed to fulfil that obligation.
                                                                   (1) OJ L 129 of 18.5.1976, p. 23.
(1) declare that, by failing to take adequate steps to
     transpose into national law the provisions of
     Article 7(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive 76/464/


title: Case C-562/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 31 October 2013 — Centre public d’action sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve v Moussa Abdida

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 31 October 2013 — Centre public d’action sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve v Moussa Abdida
   (Case C-562/13)
   2014/C 9/32
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Centre public d’action sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-La-Neuve

      Respondent: Moussa Abdida

      Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper construction of Directives 2004/83/EC, (1) 2005/85/EC (2) and 2003/9/EC, (3) is a Member State which provides that a foreign national has the right to subsidiary protection for the purposes of Article 15(b) of Directive 2004/83/EC if that person ‘suffers from an illness which is of such a kind as to entail a real risk to his life or physical integrity or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment where there is no adequate treatment for that illness in his country of origin’ under an obligation to

                           —

                           provide for a remedy with suspensive effect in respect of the administrative decision refusing leave to remain and/or subsidiary protection, and ordering the person to leave the territory of that State,

                           —

                           make provision under its social security or reception system for the basic needs of the person applying for subsidiary protection (other than his medical needs) to be met pending a ruling on his appeal against that administrative decision?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does the Charter of Fundamental Rights — and, in particular, Articles 1 to 3 (human dignity, right to life and integrity), Article 4 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Article 19(2) (right not to be removed to a State where there is a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment), Articles 20 and 21 (equality and non-discrimination as compared with other categories of applicants for subsidiary protection) and/or Article 47 (right to an effective remedy) of that Charter — place a Member State in course of transposing Directives 2004/83/EC, 2005/85/EC and 2003/9/EC into national law under an obligation to make provision for a remedy with suspensive effect and for the requisite means of meeting the basic needs referred to in Question 1?

      (1)  Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted (OJ 2004 L 304, p. 2).

      (2)  Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status (OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13).

      (3)  Council Directive 2003/9/EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (OJ 2003 L 31, p. 18).


title: Case C-290/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 24 May 2016 — Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.
   (Case C-290/16)
   (2016/C 343/34)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG

      Defendant: Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbände — Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband e.V.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the third sentence of Article 23(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that air carriers must specify the actual amount of taxes, airport charges and other charges, surcharges or fees listed in points (b), (c) and (d) when publishing their air fares and therefore may not partially include them in their air fares in accordance with point (a) of that provision?

               2.

               Is Article 22(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the application of a national law on standard business conditions, which has its basis in Union law, according to which a separate handling fee cannot be imposed on customers who have not taken a flight or cancelled a flight?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community, OJ 2008 L 293, p. 3.


title: Case C-312/02: Action brought on 5 September 2002 by the Kingdom of Sweden against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 261/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26.10.2002
heat treatment or had been packaged in airtight containers.                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
The Commission claims that the peaches and pears intended                  Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by
for the production of fruit salad had not undergone adequate               order of that Court of 6 June 2002 in the cases pending
heat treatment (pasteurisation or sterilisation) and had been              between Petrolvilla & Bortolotti Spa (previously S.C.D.
stored in open containers, irrespective of the fact that those             Srl), Energy Service Srl, Panarotta 2002 Srl, Tumedei Spa,
products had been stored for only a few days before being                  NTB Spa (previously Nuova Tessilbrenta Spa), Hotel
included in fruit salads. The infringement of the regulations              Bellavista di Litterini Valter e Nadia Snc, Cattoni Hotel
was in respect of the classification of those products as                  Plaza di Cartoni Giancarlo and C Snc, Villa Luti Srl,
‘intermediate products for the production of fruit salad’. Such            Pavarini Components Srl, Tecnopal Srl, Funivie Madonna
a product was not approved for aid until 1997-1998. The                    di Campiglio Spa against Agenzia delle Entrate (previously
Commission’s position is not valid. Payment of the aid to the                   Direzione delle Entrate) per la Provincia di Trento
processing industries was effected pursuant to Regulation (EC)
No 504/97, which defines peaches in syrup and/or in natural                                         (Case C-306/02)
fruit juice as whole peaches or pieces of peaches, without peel,
having undergone a heat treatment, packed in hermetically
sealed containers with a covering liquid of sugar syrup or                                          (2002/C 261/10)
natural fruit juice. The regulation does not specify the type of
container, require that heat treatment should be applied, nor
lay down the intended use. The Italian Government claims that
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
the financial correction applied to 100 % of the products
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
subsequently intended for the production of fruit salad con-               ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First
tained in 200 kilogram containers is unlawful and should be
                                                                           Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 6 June 2002, received at
annulled.
                                                                           the Court Registry on 27 August 2002, for a preliminary
                                                                           ruling in the cases pending between Petrolvilla & Bortolotti
                                                                           Spa (previously S.C.D. Srl), Energy Service Srl, Panarotta 2002
                                                                           Srl, Tumedei Spa, NTB Spa (previously Nuova Tessilbrenta
                                                                           Spa), Hotel Bellavista di Litterini Valter e Nadia Snc, Cattoni
                                                                           Hotel Plaza di Cartoni Giancarlo and C Snc, Villa Luti Srl,
                                                                           Pavarini Components Srl, Tecnopal Srl, Funivie Madonna
Inadequate checks on stocks                                                di Campiglio Spa against Agenzia delle Entrate (previously
                                                                           Direzione delle Entrate) per la Provincia di Trento on the
                                                                           following question:
The Commission may claim that checks were inadequate only                  ‘Does the annual assessment to tax at the rate of 0.75 % per
if it should be found that the objectives laid down in the                 annum of a company’s net assets pursuant to Decree-Law
regulation relating to the determination of the methods for                No 324 of 30 September 1992 in so far as it relates solely to
applying the production aid scheme for such processed                      that part of the net assets consisting exclusively of the
products containing fruit and vegetables had not been attained.            company’s capital as disclosed annually in the balance sheet,
In the present case, no evidence to that effect has even                   constitute a tax having equivalent economic effect to capital
been proffered. It follows that the complaint is general,                  duty already levied at the maximum rate of 1 %, thus rendering
unsubstantiated and, therefore, unlawful. Moreover, it should              it incompatible with Community law and, in particular,
be observed that the EAGGF has never given any indication as               Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 ( 1)?’
to what method to apply for inspecting stocks, nor is such a
method mentioned in the regulations governing the sector. It
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.
follows that the Commission cannot claim that a prescribed
accounting and verification method was infringed. Accord-
ingly, the financial correction of 10 % by way of a penalty for
the alleged inadequate implementation of checks is unlawful.
                                                                           Action brought on 5 September 2002 by the Kingdom
( 1) OJ 2002 L 170, p. 77. Commission Decision excluding from              of Sweden against the Commission of the European
     Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member                                  Communities
     States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
     Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).
                                                                                (Case C-312/02)
( 2) OJ L 144, 8.6.1991, p. 31.
( 3) OJ 1997 L 78, p. 14.
                                                                                (2002/C 261/11)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
 ---pagebreak--- 26.10.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 261/7
Communities on 24 July 2002 by the Kingdom of Sweden,                    of an application for aid. The cards were sent to all the farmers
represented by A. Kruse and K. Renman, acting as Agents, with            concerned and the card fees were then invoiced separately.
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                    Applications were considered and aid granted whether the
                                                                         card fee had been paid or not. Moreover farmers were also
                                                                         able to use the cards for other purposes than aid applications.
Sweden claims that the Court should:
—     first, on the basis of Article 230 EC, declare Commission          (Claim in the alternative)
      Decision 2002/524/EC ( 1) void in so far as it excludes
      from       Community        financing    expenditure       of
      SEK 18 555 850 incurred in Sweden;
                                                                         The government considers that the card fees paid for forage
—     in the alternative, reduce the amount to be excluded from          areas cannot be taken as a basis for the calculation of the
      Community financing to SEK 11 817 748;                             amount excluded from Community financing. The govern-
                                                                         ment also takes the view that card fees for areas in respect of
                                                                         which both area aid or livestock aid and environmental or
—     in the further alternative, reduce the amount to be                regional aid is applied for cannot be included in the calculation
      excluded from Community financing to SEK 12 436 091;               of the amount excluded from Comunity financing. There was
                                                                         no provision requiring card fees to be calculated primarily
                                                                         from outside the area covered by an application for area aid.
—     order the Commission to pay Sweden’s costs.                        The Commission’s position therefore has no basis in the
                                                                         Swedish legislation on the calculation of the fees and gives rise
                                                                         to unreasonable consequences. The Commission’s reasoning
                                                                         would, moreover, imply that anyone who applied for environ-
                                                                         ment aid would be liable to pay the card fee but would evade
                                                                         such liability by applying at the same time for area aid in
                                                                         respect of the same area.
Pleas in law and main arguments
(First claim)                                                            (Claim in the further alternative)
The communication referred to in the first subparagraph of
Article 8(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (2) of             In the event that the Court considers that forage areas can be
7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of            taken as a basis for the calculation of the amount excluded
Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure               from Community financing, the government takes the view
for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee                 that card fees for areas in respect of which both area aid or
Section and received by Sweden on 24 October 2000 con-                   livestock aid and environmental or regional aid is applied for
tained no assessment of the expenditure the Commission                   cannot be included in that calculation.
proposed to exclude from Community financing.
The collection of card fees cannot be regarded as an adminis-            (1 ) of 26 June 2002 excluding from Community financing certain
                                                                              expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
trative fee for the handling of applications for aid and thus did
                                                                              Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
not entail any breach of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                              Fund (EAGGF) OJ 2002 L 170, 29.6.2002, p. 77.
No 1765/92 (3) of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system             (2 ) OJ 1995 L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6.
for producers of certain arable crops or of Article 30a of               (3 ) OJ 1992 L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 12.
Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 ( 4) of the Council of 27 June                (4 ) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 187.
1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and
veal. The amount due to Swedish farmers under Community
legislation was paid out in full to the recipients of aid. The fact
that the Swedish card fee was not levied as consideration for
the receipt of a card is of key importance. Payment of the card
fee was not a pre-condition for the examination and approval


title: Case C-353/05: Action brought on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/13

         Action brought on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-353/05)
   (2005/C 281/25)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 September 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Bernard Schima and Florence Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Dircetive 2003/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92 EC and, in any event, by not informing the Commission of their adoption, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementing the Directive expired on 1 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 176 of 15.07.2003, p. 37


title: Case C-179/06: Action brought on  5 April 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/26

         Action brought on 5 April 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-179/06)
   (2006/C 143/49)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia, Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, as the municipality of Altamura and the region of Apulia approved, with effect from December 2000, an alteration to a development plan comprising a series of industrial construction operations liable to have a significant impact on SPA and SCIp IT 9120007 Murgia Alta without having first carried out an impact assessment procedure at least in respect of the impact on the SPA, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(3) and 7 of Directive 92/43/EEC; (1)

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The alteration to the development plan concerning the construction operations falling within SPA and SCIp IT 912007 Murgia Alta was not the subject of an appropriate assessment of the impact on the area, as provided for in Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC.
   The resolution of the municipality of Altamura and the Regional Executive, which approved the said alteration to the development plan, is in contravention of the abovementioned Community provisions, in that, although the said alteration was liable to have a significant impact on SPA and SCIp IT 9120007 Murgia Alta, an impact assessment procedure was not carried out.
   The reason stated for the absence of an assessment clearly does not comply with Community law. The reason given is that the size of the construction operations fell below the thresholds set by the domestic law implementing Directives 85/337/EEC, as amended, (2) and 92/43/EEC. However, under Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC ‘any plan or project’ likely to have a significant impact on the site must be subject to an impact assessment, and this obligation is not limited to a list of projects the size of which exceeds the threshold set.

      (1)  OJ L 206, p. 7.

      (2)  OJ L 175, p. 40.