title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 January 2004 in Case T-245/03 R Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA) and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/42

      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 21 January 2004
   in Case T-245/03 R Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA) and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Interim proceedings - Competition - Payment of a fine - Bank guarantee - Prima facie case - Urgency - Balance of interests - Partial and conditional suspension)
   (2004/C 94/121)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-245/03 R: Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles (FNSEA), established in Paris (France), Fédération nationale bovine (FNB), established in Paris, Fédération nationale des producteurs du lait (FNPL), established in Paris, and Jeunes agriculteurs (JA), established in Paris, represented by B. Néouze and V. Ledoux, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the French Republic (agents: G. de Bergues and F. Million), against Commission of the European Communities (agents: P. Oliver and A. Bouquet) — application for dispensation, in whole or in part, from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee in order to avoid enforcement of the fines imposed by Commission Decision 2003/600/EC of 2 April 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.279/F3 -- French beef) (OJ 2003 L 209, p. 12) — the President of the Court of First Instance, made an order on 21 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1)

               The obligation on the Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles to provide the Commission with a bank guarantee in order to avoid immediate enforcement of the fines imposed on it by Article 3 of Commission Decision 2003/600/EC of 2 April 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.279/F3 —French beef) is suspended on the following conditions:

                           a)

                           within a period of three weeks from notification of this order, the Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles shall pay the Commission the sum of EUR 1,5 million and provide a bank guarantee of EUR 1,7 million or, alternatively, the Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles shall provide a bank guarantee of EUR 3,2 million;

                           b)

                           within a period of five months from notification of this order the Fédération nationale des syndicats d'exploitants agricoles shall pay the Commission the balance of the fine still due, together with interest, or provide a bank guarantee of that amount.

               2)

               The obligation on the Fédération nationale bovine to provide the Commission with a bank guarantee in order to avoid immediate enforcement of the fines imposed on it by Article 3 of Decision 2003/600 is suspended on the following conditions:

                           a)

                           within a period of three weeks from notification of this order, the Fédération nationale bovine shall pay the Commission the sum of EUR 200 000 and provide a bank guarantee of EUR 670 000 or, alternatively, the Fédération nationale bovine shall provide a bank guarantee of EUR 870 000;

                           b)

                           within a period of five months from notification of this order, the Fédération nationale bovine shall pay the Commission the balance of the fine still due, together with interest, or provide a bank guarantee of that amount.

               3)

               The obligation on the Jeunes agriculteurs to provide the Commission with a bank guarantee in order to avoid immediate enforcement of the fines imposed on it by Article 3 of Decision 2003/600 is suspended on the following conditions:

                           a)

                           within a period of three weeks from notification of this order, the Jeunes agriculteurs shall pay the Commission the sum of EUR 15 000 or, alternatively, provide a bank guarantee of that amount;

                           b)

                           within a period of five months from notification of this order, the Jeunes agriculteurs shall pay the Commission the balance of the fine still due, together with interest, or provide a bank guarantee of that amount.

               4)

               The suspension granted in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative part of this order shall cease to have effect if the applicants do not communicate to the Commission, within a period of six weeks from notification of this order, the annual accounts of the Fédération nationale bovine and the Jeunes agriculteurs for the 2001 and 2002 financial years, audited and certified by an audit firm of international repute;

               5)

               Until bank guarantees covering interest are established, the applicants shall communicate to the Commission:

                           a)

                           monthly, the main parameters relating to changes in their economic and financial situation, which the Commission shall define upon notification of this order;

                           b)

                           prior to its adoption, any decision liable substantially to affect their economic situation or intended to change their legal status.

               6)

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case T-450/11: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — ESA and Commission (GALILEO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark GALILEO — Earlier Community word marks GALILEO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No similarity between the goods and services at issue)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — ESA and Commission (GALILEO)
   (Case T-450/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark GALILEO - Earlier Community word marks GALILEO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No similarity between the goods and services at issue))
   2014/C 380/09
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, M. Blair and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, interveners before the General Court: European Commission (represented by: J. Samnada and F. Wilman, acting as Agents); European Space Agency (ESA) (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Buydens, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2011 (Case R 1423/2005-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Galileo International Technology LLC and the European Union.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Galileo International Technology LLC to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by OHIM;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the European Space Agency to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 November 2003 in Case C-293/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities (Annulment of Commission Decision 2000/362/EC of 25 May 2000 on the total amount of Community aid for the eradication of classical swine fever in the Netherlands in 1997)

text:
C 7/8                    EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             10.1.2004
taking the necessary measures to ensure that the quality of                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
inshore bathing water in Spanish territory conforms to the
limit values set in accordance with Article 3 of Council
Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1), notwithstanding
its obligations under Article 4 of that directive, the Kingdom
of Spain has not complied with the judgment of the Court of
Justice in Case C-92/96 Commission v Spain [1998] ECR I-                                             of 6 November 2003
505, and has accordingly failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 228 EC and, second, for an order that the Kingdom of
Spain be required to pay to the Commission, into the account                  in Case C-293/00: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
‘European Community own resources’, a penalty payment of                                mission of the European Communities (1)
EUR 45 600 per day of delay in adopting the measures
necessary to comply with the said judgment in Commission v
Spain, from the date on which judgment is delivered in this
case until the date on which the said judgment in Commission                  (Annulment of Commission Decision 2000/362/EC of
v Spain is complied with, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris,                 25 May 2000 on the total amount of Community aid for the
President, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann and J.N. Cunha                       eradication of classical swine fever in the Netherlands in
Rodrigues (Rapporteur)             (Presidents of Chambers),                                                  1997)
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the                                           (2004/C 7/12)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 November 2003, in
which it:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
1.    Declares that, by not taking the measures necessary to ensure           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      that the quality of inshore bathing water in Spanish territory                             in the European Court Reports)
      conforms to the limit values set in accordance with Article 3 of
      Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concern-
      ing the quality of bathing water, notwithstanding its obligations
      under Article 4 of that directive, the Kingdom of Spain has not
      taken all the measures necessary to comply with the Court’s
      judgment of 12 February 1998 in Case C-92/96 Commission                 In Case C-293/00, Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
      v Spain and has accordingly failed to fulfil its obligations under      A. Fierstra, C. Wissels and J. G. M. van Bakel) v Commission of
      Article 228 EC.                                                         the European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn): Application
                                                                              for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/362/EC of
                                                                              25 May 2000 on the total amount of Community aid for the
                                                                              eradication of classical swine fever in the Netherlands in 1997
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay to the Commission of the
                                                                              (OJ 2000 L 129, p. 33), in so far as the financial aid granted to
      European Communities, into the account ‘European Community
                                                                              the Netherlands by the Community for the eradication of
      own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 624 150 per year
                                                                              classical swine fever in 1997 is reduced by 25 % of the
      and per 1 % of bathing areas in Spanish inshore waters which
                                                                              amounts paid to farmers by way of compensation, the Court
      have been found not to conform to the limit values laid down
                                                                              (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President
      under Directive 76/160 for the year in question, as from the
                                                                              of the Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth
      time when the quality of bathing water achieved in the first
                                                                              Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr,
      bathing season following delivery of this judgment is ascertained
                                                                              Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
      until the year in which the judgment in Commission v Spain is
                                                                              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      fully complied with.
                                                                              6 November 2003, in which it:
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                           1.    Dismisses the application.
                                                                              2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.


title: Case C-343/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 8 July 2015 — J. Klinkenberg v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 8 July 2015 — J. Klinkenberg v Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu
   (Case C-343/15)
   (2015/C 311/36)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: J. Klinkenberg

      Respondent: Minister van Infrastructuur en Milieu

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 1 of Directive 1999/63/EC (1) and Clause 1(1) of the Annex to that directive, entitled ‘European Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers’, be interpreted as meaning that that directive and that agreement are applicable to a public official who works for the Netherlands National Maritime Company and who is a member of the crew of a ship engaged in carrying out fisheries inspections?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative, must Article 2 of Directive 89/391/EEC (2), Article 1(3) and Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 93/104/EC (3), and Article 1(3) and Article 2(1) and (2) of Directive 2003/88/EC (4) be interpreted as meaning that Directive 93/104/EC and Directive 2003/88/EC are applicable to the public official referred to in Question 1?

               3.

               Must Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 93/104/EC and Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC be interpreted as precluding a regulation of a Member State on the basis of which the hours during which the public official referred to in Question 1 does not perform any work during the voyage but during which he is obliged to be available on call in order to remedy problems in the engine room are regarded as constituting rest periods?

               4.

               Must Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 93/104/EC and Articles 3, 5 and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC be interpreted as precluding a regulation of a Member State on the basis of which the hours during which the public official referred to in Question 1 does not perform any work during the voyage but during which he is obliged, on the instructions of the master of the ship, to perform work if that is necessary for the immediate safety of the ship, of the persons on board, of the cargo or of the environment, or for the purpose of giving assistance to other ships or persons in distress, are regarded as constituting rest periods?

      (1)  Council Directive of 21 June 1999 concerning the Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers concluded by the European Community Shipowners’ Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport Workers’ Unions in the European Union (FST) — Annex: European Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers (OJ 1999 L 167, p. 33).

      (2)  Council Directive of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Directive of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 1993 L 307, p. 18).

      (4)  Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9).


title: Case C-273/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (Spain) lodged on 1 June 2010 — David Montoya Medina v Fondo de Garantía Salarial and Universidad de Alicante

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana (Spain) lodged on 1 June 2010 — David Montoya Medina v Fondo de Garantía Salarial and Universidad de Alicante
   (Case C-273/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/41
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: David Montoya Medina

      Defendants: Fondo de Garantía Salarial and Universidad de Alicante

      Question referred

   Are rules of the kind set out in Decree 174/2002 of 15 October of the Valencian Government on the regulation and remuneration of teaching and research staff employed in Valencian public universities and on additional remuneration of university teaching staff contrary to the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Clause 4 of the framework agreement annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC (1) of 28 June 1999, in so far as they do not recognise the right of post-doctoral assistant lecturers on fixed-term contracts (profesores ayudantes doctores) to receive a length-of-service supplement in the form of three-yearly increments when that same supplement is granted to post-doctoral lecturers on contracts of indefinite duration (profesores contratados doctores)?

      (1)  Concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP
   OJ L 175, p. 43


title: Case T-168/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission (Competition — Wholesale distribution of medicines — Parallel trade — Differentiated prices — Article 81(1) EC — Agreement — Restriction of competition — Object — Relevant market — Effect — Article 81(3) EC — Contribution to the promotion of technical progress — No elimination of competition — Evidence — Statement of reasons — Subsidiarity)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2006 — GlaxoSmithKline Services v Commission
   (Case T-168/01) (1)

   (Competition - Wholesale distribution of medicines - Parallel trade - Differentiated prices - Article 81(1) EC - Agreement - Restriction of competition - Object - Relevant market - Effect - Article 81(3) EC - Contribution to the promotion of technical progress - No elimination of competition - Evidence - Statement of reasons - Subsidiarity)
   (2006/C 294/82)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, formerly Glaxo Wellcome plc (Brentford, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Martínez Lage, lawyer, I. Forrester QC, F. Depoortere, A. Schultz, T. Louko and I. Vandenborre, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially P. Oliver, then É. Gippini Fournier, Agents,)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) (Brussels, Belgium)) (represented: initially by U. Zinsmeister and M. Lienemeyer, then by A. Martin-Ehlers, and finally by M. Hartmann-Rüppel, lawyers); Bundesverband der Arzneimittell-Importeure eV, (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented: initially by M. Epping and W. Rehmann, then by W. Rehmann, lawyers); Spain Pharma, SA, (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Muñoz Carpena, B. Ortúzar Somoza and R. Gutiérrez Sánchez, lawyers); and Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar), (Madrid, Spain) (represented: initially by M. Araujo Boyd and R. Sanz, then by M. Araujo Boyd and J.L. Buendia Sierra, lawyers)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2001) 1202 final of 8 May 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/36.957/F3 Glaxo Wellcome (notification), IV/36.997/F3 Aseprofar and Fedifar (complaint), IV/37.380/F3 EAEPC (complaint)) — Spain Pharma (complaint), IV/37.138/F3 — BAI (complaint) and IV/37.380/F3 — EAEPC (complaint)) (OJ 2001 L 302, p. 1)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2001/791/EC of 8 May 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Cases IV/36.957/F3 Glaxo Wellcome (notification), IV/36.997/F3 Aseprofar and Fedifar (complaint), IV/37.121/F3 Spain Pharma (complaint), IV/37.138/F3 BAI (complaint) and IV/37.380/F3 EAEPC (complaint));

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the interventions;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs incurred by GlaxoSmithKline Services, including those relating to the interventions;

               5.

               Orders the Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar), the Bundesverband der Arzneimittell-Importeure eV, the European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC) and Spain Pharma, SA, to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 275, 29.9.2001.


title: Case T-729/14: Order of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — PAN Europe and Unaapi v Commission

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/61

         Order of the General Court of 30 June 2015 — PAN Europe and Unaapi v Commission
   (Case T-729/14) (1)

   (2015/C 311/70)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.


title: Case T-303/13: Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Miettinen v Council

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/18

         Action brought on 4 June 2013 — Miettinen v Council
   (Case T-303/13)
   2013/C 215/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Samuli Miettinen (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: O. Brouwer, E. Raedts, lawyers, and A. Villette, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Council of 21 March 2013 refusing to grant full access to document 15309/12 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43), as communicated to the applicant on 25 March 2013 in a letter bearing the reference ‘04/c/01/13’ (the Contested Decision); and

               —

               Order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of Article 4(2) second indent and Article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, since the Contested Decision is based on a wrong interpretation and application of such provisions, which relate to the protection of court proceedings and legal advice and to the protection of the ongoing decision-making process respectively, as:

                           —

                           Firstly, the Council failed to demonstrate that disclosure of document 15309/12 prejudices its legal service’s ability to defend it in future legal proceedings, and undermines the legislative process;

                           —

                           Secondly, the Council failed to demonstrate that document 15309/12 is particularly sensitive and/or of a wide scope justifying the setting aside of the presumption favouring disclosure of legal opinions in the legislative context;

                           —

                           Thirdly, the Council’s theory of harm is purely hypothetical. It is factually, as well as legally, unfounded considering that the content of the advice contained in document 15309/12, a consensus among Member States which in line with the legal service’s analysis, was public when the Contested Decision was taken; and

                           —

                           Fourthly, the Council misapplied the overriding public interest test when invoking Article 4(3) first subparagraph when it considered only the perceived risks to its decision-making process associated to disclosure and not the positive effects of such disclosure, inter alia, for the legitimacy of the decision-making process and failed to apply the test at all when invoking Article 4(2) second indent.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state adequate reasons under Article 296 TFEU, as the Council did not fulfill its obligation to state sufficient and adequate reasons for the Contested Decision.


title: Action brought on 19 February 1997 by Kingdom of Belgium against Commission of the European Communities (Case C-75/97)

text:
26 . 4 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 131 /5
          proceedings brought by Givenchy and pending                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de lo
          before a national court, in which the question of             Social No 1 , Pontevedra, by order of that court of
          the validity of Parfums Givenchy SA's selective               28 January 1997 in the case of Mercedes Gomez Montana
          distribution system was expressly raised,                     v. Claro Sol S. A. and Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles
                                                                                Espaftoles (Renfe)
     — by an inaccurate assessment of the effect of the                                            ( Case C-74/97)
          contested decision on the competitive situation and
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 / 11 )
          of the importance of that criterion when deciding
          whether a person is individually concerned, and
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     — because the finding that Kruidvat's action was                   European Communities by order of Juzgado de lo Social
          inadmissible deprives it of full and effective legal          ( Social Court) No 1 , Pontevedra, of 28 January 1997,
          protection .                                                  which was received at the Court Registry on 20 February
                                                                        1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mercedes
                                                                        Gomez Montana v. Claro Sol S. A. and Red Nacional de
— Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                         Ferrocarriles Espanoles ( Renfe ) on the following question .
                                                                        Does Directive 77/187/EEC ( 1 ) of 14 February 1977 cover
                                                                        circumstances in which the termination of a contract with
                                                                        a cleaning company results in the dismissal of the worker
                                                                        employed by the contractor and the cleaning is taken over
Appeal brought on 20 February 1997 by the French                        by the principal, a rail transport undertaking, using its
Republic against the judgment delivered on 11 December                  own employees ?
1996 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in case T-70/94                    (') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .
between Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd
& Co. and the Commission of the European Communities
                supported by the United Kingdom
                        ( Case C-73/97 P )
                           ( 97/C 131 / 10 )                            Action brought on 19 February 1997 by Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 December                                            ( Case C-75/97)
1996 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 / 12 )
Instance of the European Communities in case T-70/94
between Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd
8c Co. and the Commission of the European Communities                   An action against the Commission of the European
supported by the United Kingdom, was brought before the                 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         the European Communities on 19 February 1997 by the
20 February 1997 by the French Republic, represented by                 Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Gerwin van Gerven
Catherine de Salins and Frederic Pascal , acting as agents,             and Koen Coppenholle, of the Brussels Bar, with an
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Embassy, 9 boulevard Prince Henri .                                     Freddy Brausch, 11 rue Goethe .
                                                                        The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court should :
The Appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — declare the application for annulment of Decision
— partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First                     SG(96 ) 4080 final of 4 December 1996 , notified by
     Instance of 11 December 1996 in Case T-70/94 in so                      letter S/11511 of 10 December 1996 concerning
     far as that judgment dismissed the objection of                         measures of aid by the Belgian Government in the
                                                                             framework of the Maribel II/III scheme admissible and
     inadmissibility raised by the defendant.
                                                                             well founded, and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
In holding that the applicant undertakings are directly and              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
individually concerned by the provisions of Article 1 of                — Infringement of Articles 92 and 1 90 of the EC Treaty:
the contested Regulation, the Court of First Instance failed
to take account of either the general scope or the                      — Maribel II/III does not constitute aid
 legislative character of the Regulation which has legal
effects on all of the operators in categories A and B. The                   The Commission refers to the statement in the Belgian
applicants adduced nothing to distinguish them from other                    legislation that the measure is applied to undertakings
category A operators and justify their being regarded as                     'which are exposed to international competition'. The
 individually concerned by the Regulation .                                  Maribel II/III scheme does not, however, benefit only
                                                                             undertakings which actively engage in export; nor is it
                                                                             true that the Maribel II/III scheme benefits only sectors
 ---pagebreak--- No C 131/6          [ EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 4. 97
    in difficulty and in which competition is very severe in          Munich) of 5 December 1996, received at the Court
    the Community. The Maribel II/III scheme thus                     Registry on 24 February 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
    constitutes a general measure which, for budgetary                the case of Happy Sports Michl OHG against Finanzamt
    reasons, cannot yet be extended to all sectors .                  ( Tax Office ) Landshut on the following questions:
    The Commission has in no way demonstrated in the                  1 . Does the hiring out at an hourly charge of sports
    contested decision to what extent the Maribel II/III                   facilities to users ( for example of tennis courts to
    scheme is alleged to have an adverse effect on trade                   tennis players ) come under the 'leasing or letting of
    between Member States . It confines itself to deducing                 immovable property' within the meaning of the tax
    from     the   abovementioned      statement     that  such            exemption in Article 13B ( b ) of the sixth Council
    undertakings are ' by definition' in competition with                  Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                           harmonization of the laws of the Member States
    the products of foreign undertakings,
                                                                           relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
                                                                           value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment (') ('the
— ( In the alternative ) Maribel II/III is compatible with                 sixth Directive')?
    the common market . The Maribel II/III scheme is
    intended to boost employment by the creation of less              2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative : is
    skilled jobs,                                                          'leasing or letting of immovable property excluding . . .
                                                                           lettings of permanently installed equipment' in
— ( In the alternative ) Breach of the principle of                        Article 13B ( b ) ( 3 ) of the sixth Directive to be
    proportionality                                                        interpreted as meaning that the liability to tax on
                                                                           lettings of equipment encompasses the letting of the
                                                                           surrounding building and immovable property, or is
    The recovery imposed is a disproportionate sanction in                 the hiring out of sports facilities to be split up into an
    relation to the infringement committed. In view of the                 exempt letting of immovable property and a taxable
    uncertainty as to the definition of a 'general measure',               letting of equipment ?
    it is difficult to regard the infringement as 'serious'.
    Nor is it clear from the contested decision what effect           (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
    the measure has on trade between Member States . It is
    only in the enacting terms that the Commission
    requires the Belgian State to recover the aid, without,
    however, referring to the grounds on which it took the
    decision to do so .
                                                                      Action brought on 25 February 1997 by MD Foods Amba
    Breach of the principles of proportionality, sound                and Danske Mejeriers Fællesorganisation, acting on behalf
    administration and legal certainty, of the rights of the          of Kløvermælk Amba, Løgismose Produktion A/S,
    defence and of legitimate expectations: the                       Mejeriselskabet Vesthimmerland, Nordex Food A/S,
    Commission should have had recourse to less far                  Sinai Landmejeri, c/o Gunnar Larsen, and Sædager
    reaching measures, such as already requesting, pending            Andelsmejeri against Commission of the European
    the procedure pursuant to Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC                                            Communities
    Treaty, that payment of the ( continuing) aid be                                             ( Case C-81/97)
    deferred,
                                                                                ( 97/C 131/14 )
— ( In the alternative ) Absolute impossibility of recovery
    in view of the large number of undertakings                       On 25 February 1997, a case was referred to the Court of
    concerned .                                                       Justice of the European Communities which had been
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance by MD Foods
                                                                      Amba and Danske Mejeriers Faellesorganisation, acting on
                                                                      behalf of Klovermaslk Amba and Others. In the case,
                                                                      which had been given the number T- 13 9/96, the Court of
                                                                      First Instance issued a referral order and referred the case
                                                                      to the Court of Justice in order that the latter might rule
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht               on the application for annulment.
Miinchen by order of that court of 5 December 1996 in
the case of Happy Sports Michl OHG against Finanzamt                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             Landshut
                        ( Case C-79/97)                               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
                          ( 97/C 131/13 )                             those in Case T-139/96 , MD Foods Amba and Others v.
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities (*).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (') OJ No C 354 , 23 . 11 . 1996 , p . 28 .
European Communities by order of the Fourteenth
Chamber of the Finanzgericht Miinchen ( Finance Court,


title: Case C-354/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — SC Capoda Import-Export SRL v Registrul Auto Român, Benone-Nicolae Bejan (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect — Products in free circulation in Germany — Products subject to homologation inspections in Romania — Certificate of conformity issued by a distributor in another Member State — Certificate deemed insufficient to allow the free marketing of those products — Principle of mutual recognition — Partly inadmissible)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/9

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj — Romania) — SC Capoda Import-Export SRL v Registrul Auto Român, Benone-Nicolae Bejan
   (Case C-354/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Free movement of goods - Measures having equivalent effect - Products in free circulation in Germany - Products subject to homologation inspections in Romania - Certificate of conformity issued by a distributor in another Member State - Certificate deemed insufficient to allow the free marketing of those products - Principle of mutual recognition - Partly inadmissible))
   (2015/C 389/10)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Capoda Import-Export SRL

      Defendants: Registrul Auto Român, Benone-Nicolae Bejan

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 34 TFEU and Article 31(1) and (12) of Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007 establishing a framework for the approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, and of systems, components and separate technical units intended for such vehicles (Framework Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which makes the marketing in a Member State of new spare parts for road vehicles — in this case, water pumps and fuel filters — subject to the application of an approval or homologation procedure in that Member State, provided that that legislation also lays down exceptions such as to ensure that parts lawfully produced and marketed in other Member States are exempted or, failing this, that the parts in question are capable of posing a significant risk to the correct functioning of systems that are essential for the safety of the vehicle or its environmental performance and that that approval or homologation procedure is strictly necessary and proportionate in relation to the objectives of protection of road safety or of protection of the environment.

               2.

               The conditions for proving that such parts have already been approved or homologated or constitute original parts or parts of matching quality are governed, in the absence of EU rules on the matter, by the law of the Member States, subject to the principles of equivalence and of effectiveness.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case C-297/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the case of Nicolò Tricarico against Assitalia Assicurazioni SpA

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto by order of that court of 30 June 2004 in the case of Nicolò Tricarico against Assitalia Assicurazioni SpA
   (Case C-297/04)
   (2004/C 251/07)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di Bitonto (Magistrates' Court, Bitonto, Italy) of 30 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 13 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Nicolò Tricarico against Assitalia Assicurazioni SpA on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it renders void an agreement or concerted practice between insurance companies consisting of a mutual exchange of information which makes it possible to increase RC auto insurance policy premiums which are not justified by market conditions, including in view of the fact that undertakings from several Member States took part in the agreement or concerted practice?

               2.

               Is Article 81 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that it entitles third parties who have a relevant legal interest to rely on the invalidity of an agreement or practice prohibited by that Community provision and claim damages for the harm suffered where there is a causal relationship between the agreement or concerted practice and the harm?

               3.

               Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of the limitation period for bringing an action for damages based thereon, time begins to run from the day on which the agreement or concerted practice was adopted or the day on which the agreement or concerted practice came to an end?

               4.

               Is Article 81 of the Treaty to be interpreted as meaning that where the national court sees that the damages that can be awarded on the basis of national law are lower than the economic advantage gained by the infringing party to the prohibited agreement or concerted practice, should also award of its own motion punitive damages to the injured third party in order to make the compensable amount higher than the advantage gained by the infringing party and deter the adoption of agreements or concerted practices prohibited under Article 81 of the Treaty?


title: Judgment of the Court of 5 December 2000 in Case C-477/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland): Eurostock Meat Marketing Ltd v Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland (Agriculture — Animal health — National emergency measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy — Specified risk material)

text:
10.3.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 79/5
failing to communicate to the Commission the laws, regu-                    D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón and
lations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with              R. Schintgen, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H. von
Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the                    Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
Council of 6 October 1997 amending Council Directives                       judgment on 5 December 2000, in which it has ruled:
90/387/EEC and 92/44/EEC for the purpose of adaptation to
a competitive environment in telecommunications (OJ 1997
L 295, p. 23), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC)
obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber),               precludes a Member State from applying to products imported from
composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the                      another Member State, where they are lawfully produced and
Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber,                  marketed, a national rule prohibiting the marketing of a cheese
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 without rind under the designation ‘Emmenthal’ in that Member
on 30 November 2000, in which it:                                           State.
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to      (1) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999.
      comply with Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament
      and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Council
      Directives 90/387/EEC and 92/44/EEC for the purpose of
      adaptation to a competitive environment in telecommunications,
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                                of 5 December 2000
                                                                            in Case C-477/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland): Eurostock Meat
                                                                            Marketing Ltd v Department of Agriculture for Northern
                                                                                Ireland (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Agriculture — Animal health — National emergency
                         of 5 December 2000                                 measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy —
                                                                                Specified risk material)
in Case C-448/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Tribunal de Police, Belley, France): criminal                                               (2001/C 79/09)
         proceedings against Jean-Pierre Guimont (1)
(Measures having equivalent effect to a quantitative restric-                                  (Language of the case: English)
tion — Purely internal situation — Manufacture and
         marketing of Emmenthal cheese without rind)
                                                                            In Case C-477/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Court of Appeal
                            (2001/C 79/08)
                                                                            in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                            Eurostock Meat Marketing Ltd and Department of Agriculture
                      (Language of the case: French)                        for Northern Ireland — on the interpretation of Article 9
                                                                            of Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989
                                                                            concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      view to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1989 L 395,
                    in the European Court Reports)                          p. 13), Commission Decision 97/534/EC of 30 July 1997 on
                                                                            the prohibition of the use of material presenting risks as
In Case C-448/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (OJ 1997
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de                     L 216, p. 95) and Article 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after
Police (Local Criminal Court), Belley, (France) for a preliminary           amendment, Article 30 EC) — the Court, composed of:
ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against                G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola,
Jean-Pierre Guimont — on the interpretation of Articles 3(a)                M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers),
and 30 et seq. of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                      D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
Articles 3(1)(a) EC and 28 EC et seq.) — the Court, composed                R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rappor-                General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
teur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers),                 a judgment on 5 December 2000, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/6                     EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             10.3.2001
A Member State may prohibit imports of bovine heads containing              and Vingrau, France, contrary to Article 6(2) to (4) of Council
material presenting risks as regards bovine spongiform encephalopa-         Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
thy, by way of an interim protective measure within the meaning of          natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,
the fourth subparagraph of Article 9(1) of Council Directive                p. 7), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in              under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal         of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Sixth Chamber,
market, where the Commission has adopted, pursuant to Article 9(4)          V. Skouris and R. Schintgen, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
of that directive, a decision such as Commission Decision 97/534/EC         General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
of 30 July 1997 on the prohibition of the use of material presenting        the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December 2000, in
risks as regards transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, requiring       which it:
the removal of, and prohibiting the use of, such material but where
the date on which the measures laid down by that decision are to            1.    Declares that, by not classifying any part of the Basses Corbières
become applicable has been postponed.                                             site as a special protection area and by not adopting special
                                                                                conservation measures for that site sufficient in their geographi-
                                                                                cal extent, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                         under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
                                                                                1979 on the conservation of wild birds;
                                                                            2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                            3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 7 December 2000
in Case C-374/98: Commission of the European Communi-                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Direc-
tives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC — Conservation of wild
                 birds — Special protection areas)                                                  of 7 December 2000
                                                                            in Case C-482/98: Italian Republic v Commission of the
                             (2001/C 79/10)
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                      (Language of the case: French)                        (Action for annulment — Council Directive 92/83/EEC —
                                                                            Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol
                                                                            and alcoholic beverages — Commission Decision 98/617/EC
                                                                            of 21 October 1998 denying authority to Italy to refuse the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                            grant of exemption to certain products exempt from excise
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             duty under Council Directive 92/83 — Cosmetic products)
In Case C-374/98: Commission of the European Communities                                                (2001/C 79/11)
(Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French
Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Nadal) — appli-
cation for a declaration, first, that, by failing to classify the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Basses Corbières site, France, as a special protection area for
the conservation of certain species of birds listed in Annex I to
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) and of certain             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
migratory species not listed in that Annex, and by also failing                                 in the European Court Reports)
to adopt special conservation measures concerning their
habitat, contrary to Article 4(1) and (2) of that directive, and,           In Case C-482/98: Italian Republic (Agents: Professor U. Lean-
second, that, by failing to take appropriate steps in relation to           za, assisted by O. Fiumara) v Commission of the European
the Basses Corbières to avoid disturbance of the species                    Communities (Agent: E. Traversa) — application for annulment
protected on that site and deterioration of their habitat likely            of Commission Decision 98/617/EC of 21 October 1998
to have a significant effect, as a result of the opening and                denying authority to Italy to refuse the grant of exemption to
working of limestone quarries in the municipalities of Tautavel             certain products exempt from excise duty under Council


title: Case C-67/11 P: Appeal brought on 16 February 2011 by DTL Corporación, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2010 in Case T-188/10, DTL Corporación S.L. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/11

         Appeal brought on 16 February 2011 by DTL Corporación, S.L. against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 15 December 2010 in Case T-188/10, DTL Corporación S.L. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-67/11 P)
   2011/C 130/20
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: DTL Corporación, SL (represented by: A. Zuazo Araluza, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales, S.L.

      Form of order sought

   Annulment in its entirety of the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 December 2010 in Case T-188/10.
   Grant of the following forms of order sought at first instance:

               1.

               annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 February 2010 in Case R 767/2009-2;

               2.

               replacement of that decision by another rejecting the opposition brought by Gestión de Recursos y Soluciones Empresariales, S.L. against the Community trade figurative mark No 5153325 ‘SOLARIA’, permitting that Community trade mark to be registered for all the services applied for in Classes 37 and 42;

               3.

               order OHIM and the other parties to the proceedings which oppose this action to pay the costs thereof.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Breach of procedure before the General Court which prejudices the interests of the applicant: the application to stay proceedings under Article 77(c) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court was totally ignored (Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union).

               2.

               Infringement of the law of the European Union by the General Court: the judgment infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) — now Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (2) — on the Community trade mark, by expressly stating:

                           (a)

                           that the word element of the Community trade mark the subject of the dispute is the dominant feature of the mark;

                           (b)

                           that that word element is not the dominant feature of the mark, which contradiction decisively influences the assessment of the likelihood of confusion (Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union).

      (1)  Regulation of 20 December 1993, on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

      (2)  Regulation of 24 March 2009 (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)


title: Case T-175/16: Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/63

      Action brought on 18 April 2016 — Wessel-Werk v EUIPO — Wolf PVG (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)
      (Case T-175/16)
      (2016/C 211/78)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Wessel-Werk GmbH (Reichshof, Germany) (represented by: C. Becker, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wolf PVG GmbH & Co. KG (Vlotho, Germany)

         Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

         Proprietor of the design at issue: The applicant

         Design at issue: Community design No 725932-0008 (Suction nozzles for vacuum cleaners)

         Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 February 2016 in Case R 1725/2014-3

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision;

                  —

                  order the unsuccessful parties to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation No 6/2002;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 63(1) of Regulation No 6/2002;

                  —

                  Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 6/2002.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 25 September 1997 in Case T-150/95: UK Steel Association v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - State aid - ECSC Treaty - Fifth Steel Aid Code - New plant - Community guidelines on aid for environmental protection)

text:
C 331 / 18            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1 . 11 . 97
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
                     of 16 September 1997                              Demaseure, Veronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, of the
                                                                       Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
in Case T-220/95 : Christophe Gimenez v. Committee of                  the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
            the Regions of the European Union (')                      Cessange, v. Council of the European Union (Agents:
(Officials — Economic and Social Committee —                           Diego Canga Fano and Aidan Patrick Feeney) —
Committee of the Regions — Common organizational                       application for annulment of the Council's decision of
structure — Internal competition — Decision by the                     29 January 1996 refusing to increase the applicant's
selection board not to admit a candidate to an internal                annual leave by the addition of extra travelling time —
             competition — Action for annulment)                       the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of:
                                                                       A. Saggio, President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura
                           ( 97/C 331 /37                              Ramos, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                       has given a judgment on 23 September 1997, in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       1 . dismisses the action;
In Case T-220/95 : Christophe Gimenez, a member of the
temporary staff of the Economic and Social Committee,                  2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             (') OJ C 9, 11 . 1 . 1997.
the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim,
v. Committee of the Regions of the European Union
(Agent: Dominique Lagasse ) — application for annulment
of the decision adopted on 27 November 1995 by the
selection board in internal competition CdR-A/03/95 not
to admit the applicant to that competition — the Court of
First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. W.                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Bellamy, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H.                                    of 25 September 1997
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
1997, in which it:                                                     in Case T- 150/95 : UK Steel Association v. Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities ( ! )
1 . annuls the decision of the selection board in internal             (Action for annulment — State aid — ECSC Treaty —
    competition CdR-A/03/95 refusing to admit the                      Fifth Steel Aid Code — New plant — Community
    applicant to that competition;                                           guidelines on aid for environmental protection)
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /39 )
2 . orders the Committee of the Regions to bear its own
    costs and to pay the costs of the applicant, including                              (Language of the case: English)
    those relating to the proceedings for interim relief.
                                                                       In Case T-150/95 : UK Steel Association, formerly British
H OJ C 16, 20 . 1 . 1996 .
                                                                       Iron and Steel Producers Association (BISPA), whose head
                                                                       office is in London, represented by John Boyce and Philip
                                                                       Raven,     Solicitors,     with   an    address for service    in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of Wagener & Rukavina,
                                                                       10a Boulevard de la Foire, v. Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities (Agents: Nicholas Khan and Paul Nemitz ),
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              supported by Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:
                     of 23 September 1997                              Georges Schmit, Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke and
                                                                       Koen Platteau, and Arbed SA, established in Luxembourg,
in Case T-l 72/96: Yannick Chevalier-Delanoue v. Council               represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele, of the Brussels
                  of the European Union (')                            Bar, with an address for service at the office of Paul
                                                                       Ehmann, Legal Department, Arbed, 19 Avenue de la
(Officials — Annual leave — Travelling time — Place of
                                                                       Liberté — application for annulment of the decision
       origin outside Europe — Equality of treatment)                  reproduced in Commission notice 94/C 400/02 pursuant
                           ( 97/C 331 /38 )                            to Article 6 (4 ) of Decision No 3855/91/ECSC to other
                                                                       Member States and interested parties concerning aid
                                                                       which Luxembourg plans to grant to ProfilARBED SA
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       (Arbed) ( State Aid C 25/94 ( ex N 11/94 ) (2 ), finding that
                                                                       the aid which the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg planned
In Case T-172/96 : Yannick Chevalier-Delanoue, . an official           to grant to ProfilARBED SA conformed to Article 3 of
of the Council of the European Union, residing in                      Decision No 3855/91 and was thus compatible with the
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 11 . 97               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 331/19
common market — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                          Action brought on 24 July 1997 by H & R Ecroyd
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: R.                             Holdings Ltd. against the Commission of the European
Garcia-Valdecasas, President, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M.                                                Communities
Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,                                                         ( Case T-220/97)
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
25 September 1997, in which it:                                                                       ( 97/C 331/41 )
1 . annuls the decision reproduced in Commission notice                                      (Language of the case: English)
       94/C 400/02 pursuant to Article 6 (4) of Decision
       No 3855/91 /ECSC          to   other Member States and
       interested parties concerning aid which Luxembourg                   An action against the Commission of the European
       plans to grant to ProfilARBED SA (Arbed) (State Aid                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
       C 25/94 (ex N 11 /94));                                              Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997
                                                                            by H & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd., represented by William
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs;                                 Neville, Peter Duffy and Philippa Watson, with an address
                                                                            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger
                                                                            Hoss and Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
3 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Arbed
       SA to bear their own costs.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
H OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
( 2 ) OJ C 400, 31 . 12 . 1994, p . 10 .
                                                                            — annul the Commission's decision contained in its letter
                                                                                dated 16 May 1997 addressed to the applicant's
                                                                                solicitor, and
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            — order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs of
                                                                                the proceedings.
                            of 9 July 1997
in Case T-63/96: Augusto Fichtner v. Commission of the
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                     European Communities (')
 (Officials — Staff reports — Complaint — Implicit
     rejection — Manifest inadmissibility of the application)               The applicant refers to the preliminary ruling of the Court
                                                                            of Justice of 6 June 1996 in Case C-127/94 (The Queen v.
                             ( 97/C 331/40 )                                Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: H
                                                                            & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd. and John Rupert Ecroyd
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                           [ 1996] ECR 1-2731 ), hereinafter 'the judgment', holding
                                                                            that producers such as the applicant had been unlawfully
In Case T-63/96 : Augusto Fichtner, an official of the                      excluded from the award of a special reference quantity
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                         under Article 3a ( 1 ) of Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84 of
Besozzo ( Italy ), represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, of the                31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application
Pavia Bar, v. Commission of the European Communities                        of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC )
 (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Alberto dal Ferro) —                       No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as
application, first, for annulment of the Commission's                       amended by Regulation (EEC ) No 764/89 of 20 March
                                                                            1989 .
decision of 12 February 1996 expressly rejecting the
 applicant's complaint of 14 February 1995 concerning his
 staff report for the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June                    The applicant challenges the Commission's decision of
 1993 and, second, for damages for the material and non                     16 May 1997 asserting that it has no obligation to ensure
 material loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the                    that effect is given to the judgment. In consequence of this
 Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                            refusal, the applicant remains unlawfully deprived of
 K. Lenaerts, President; P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges;                  quota since 1989 and is suffering severe and continuous
 H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 July 1997, the                      loss .
 operative part of which is as follows :
 I. The        application       is      dismissed    as    manifestly      The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 155 and 176
        inadmissible;                                                       of the EC Treaty and of fundamental rights. Articles 155
                                                                             and 176 impose legal obligations on the Commission to
                                                                            take the 'necessary steps to comply with' a ruling of the
 2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                             Court, and according to the Court's case-law, the
                                                                             Commission is obliged 'to review the individual situation'
 w OJ C 233 , 10. 8 . 1996 .                                                 of a person who has been the victim of unlawful
                                                                             treatment. The Commission's position displays a serious
                                                                             misunderstanding of its clear obligations .


title: Case T-2/14: Action brought on 1 January 2014 — Caixabank v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/49

         Action brought on 1 January 2014 — Caixabank v Commission
   (Case T-2/14)
   2014/C 52/95
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Caixabank SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to that decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case C-314/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Užsienio reikalų ministerija v Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 7 June 2013 — Užsienio reikalų ministerija v Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE
   (Case C-314/13)
   2013/C 233/05
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Užsienio reikalų ministerija (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

      Respondents: Vladimir Peftiev, BelTechExport ZAO, Sport-pari ZAO, BT Telecommunications PUE

      Other party to the proceedingss: Finansinių nusikaltimų tyrimų tarnyba prie Vidaus reikalų ministerijos (Financial Crime Investigation Service attached to the Ministry of the Interior)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 (1) of 18 May 2006 be interpreted as meaning that the authority which is responsible for application of the exemption set out in Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation enjoys an absolute discretion when taking a decision on whether to grant that exemption?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, by which criteria should that authority be guided, and by which criteria is it bound, when taking a decision on whether to grant the exemption set out in Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006?

               3.

               Must Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 be interpreted as meaning that the authority which is responsible for granting the aforementioned exemption is entitled or obliged, when carrying out the assessment as to whether to grant the exemption sought, to have regard for, inter alia, the fact that the applicants submitting the request are seeking to give effect to their fundamental rights (in this case, the right to a judicial remedy), although it must also ensure that if, in the specific case, the exemption is granted, the objective of the sanction provided for will not be negated and that the exemption will not be misused (for example, if the amount of money earmarked for securing a legal remedy would be manifestly disproportionate in relation to the scale of the legal services provided)?

               4.

               Must Article 3(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 be interpreted as meaning that one of the bases capable of providing justification for not granting the exemption set out in that provision may be the illegal nature of the acquisition of the funds in respect of the use of which that exemption is to be implemented?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18 May 2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2006 L 134, p. 1).


title: Case C-327/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 10 June 2016 — Marc Jacob v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 10 June 2016 — Marc Jacob v Ministre des finances et des comptes publics
   (Case C-327/16)
   (2016/C 305/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Marc Jacob

      Respondent: Ministre des finances et des comptes publics

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 8 of Directive [90/434/EEC] of 23 July 1990 (1) be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits, in the event of an exchange of shares falling within the scope of the directive, a mechanism for deferred taxation which provides, by way of derogation from the rule that the chargeable event for capital gains tax purposes occurs during the year in which the gain arises, that the capital gain on the exchange is established and settled on the exchange of the shares, and taxed in the year in which the event putting an end to the deferred taxation occurs, which may, for instance, be the transfer of the shares that were received at the time of the exchange?

               2.

               Must Article 8 of Directive [90/434/EEC] be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits, in the event of an exchange of shares falling within the scope of the directive, the capital gain on the exchange of the shares — supposing it to be taxable — from being taxed by the State in which the taxpayer was resident at the time of the exchange, when the taxpayer, at the time the shares received on that exchange are transferred (at which time the capital gain on the exchange is actually taxed), has moved his residence for tax purposes to another Member State?

      (1)  Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1).


title: Joined Cases T-156/13 and T-373/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Actions for annulment — Infra-State body — Locus standi and interest in bringing proceedings — Admissibility — Right to be heard — Obligation to notify — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2015 — Petro Suisse Intertrade v Council
   (Joined Cases T-156/13 and T-373/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Actions for annulment - Infra-State body - Locus standi and interest in bringing proceedings - Admissibility - Right to be heard - Obligation to notify - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property))
   (2015/C 389/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Petro Suisse Intertrade Co. SA (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta, N. Pilkington and D. Sellers, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71) and also of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55), and, secondly, of the Council’s decision contained in its letter of 14 March 2014 to maintain the restrictive measures taken against the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Petro Suisse Intertrade Co. SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case T-263/14: Action brought on 28 April 2014  — Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products and Others v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/22

         Action brought on 28 April 2014 — Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products and Others v Commission
   (Case T-263/14)
   2014/C 223/27
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products GmbH (Grevenbroich, Germany), Aluminium Norf GmbH (Neuss, Germany) and Trimet Aluminium SE (Essen, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein and C. Johann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 in the procedure State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, C(2013) 4424 final;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: Absence of State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU
               By their first plea, the applicants claim that the Commission wrongly assumes a use of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU in the context of the financing flows provided for under the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG).

                           —

                           The Commission wrongly concluded that the financing flows provided for under the EEG took place with the aid of ‘State resources’ within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

                           —

                           The EEG-surcharge is paid only by private parties. The resources collected cannot be attributed to the State. The required permanent State control and the related actual access possibility of the authorities are lacking both with regard to the EEG-surcharge itself and with regard to its reduction in favour of energy-intensive users.

                           —

                           In any event, the surcharge reduction for energy-intensive users does not result in a waiver of revenue which the State could normally have expected to receive. The reduction is financed solely from private resources, namely by a higher surcharge amount for every kilowatt-hour of electricity supplied to non-privileged end-consumers. The so-called special compensation regime of the EEG therefore does not affect the amount of the total revenue from the EEG-surcharge, but solely the internal distribution of charges.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Absence of a selective advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU
               By their second plea, the applicants claim that the so-called special compensation regime of the EEG — contrary to the view taken by the Commission — does not provide for any selective advantage for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU. The differentiation between energy-intensive and non-energy-intensive consumers has its roots in the logic of the EEG-surcharge system and is for this reason a priori not selective.


title: Case T-279/17: Action brought on 11 May 2017 — Hermann Bock v EUIPO (Push and Ready)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/37

         Action brought on 11 May 2017 — Hermann Bock v EUIPO (Push and Ready)
   (Case T-279/17)
   (2017/C 213/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hermann Bock GmbH (Verl, Germany) (represented by: S. Maaßen and V. Schoene, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Push and Ready’ — Application for registration No 14 758 205

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 January 2017 in Case R 1279/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, which it received on 1 March 2017, by which the Board of Appeal confirmed that figurative mark No 014758205 was not eligible for registration, and remit the case back to EUIPO for re-examination.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-398/14: Action brought on 20 August 2014  — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/3

         Action brought on 20 August 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-398/14)
   2014/C 380/03
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not ensuring an adequate level of treatment of urban waste water in the 52 listed agglomerations regarding which there is infringement, the Portuguese Republic did not comply with its duties under Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC (1) concerning urban waste water treatment.

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 4 of Directive 91/271/EEC establishes in particular that, at the latest by 31 December 2005, discharges of urban waste water to fresh-water and estuaries from agglomerations with a population equivalent of between 2  000 and 10  000 must, before discharge, be subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment.
   The Commission considers that there is a systemic problem in Portugal, as the Portuguese State has not taken planning measures, either at national or regional level, to ensure orderly compliance with the provisions of Directive 91/271/EEC.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.


title: Case C-586/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 20 November 2013 — Mertin Meat Kft. v Géza Simonfay and Others

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/3

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 20 November 2013 — Mertin Meat Kft. v Géza Simonfay and Others
      (Case C-586/13)
      (2014/C 71/04)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Mertin Meat Kft.

         Defendant: Géza Simonfay and Others

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is there a posting of workers according to European law, and specifically according to the definition of posting of workers contained in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-307/09 to C-309/09 (1) where a contractor undertakes to process sides of beef, using its own workforce, in premises rented from the client in the client’s slaughterhouse and packages them in market-ready packs of meat, and a price is payable to the contractor per kilogram of processed meat, and in the event that the processing is of insufficient quality the contractor has to accept a deduction from the price for meat processing, bearing in mind that in the host State the contractor supplies the service exclusively to that client and the client also monitors the quality of the meat processing work?

                  2.

                  Is the chief principle established by the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-307/09 to C-309/09, according to which the posting of workers can be subject to limitations while the transitional derogation from freedom of movement for workers under the Accession Treaties for the Member States which acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004 is in force, also applicable to the movement of workers in the course of a posting of workers who are sent to Austria by a company established in a Member State which acceded on 1 May 2004 if such movement occurs in a sector which is not protected under the Accession Treaty?

         (1)  Judgment of the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) of 10 February 2011.


title: Case C-524/08: Order of the President of the Court of 26 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/36

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Portugal
   (Case C-524/08) (1)

   2009/C 180/65

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.