title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-153/96 P: Jan Robert de Rijk v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Officials - Supplementary sickness insurance scheme for officials posted outside the Community - Conditions for reimbursement of medical expenses)

text:
No C 228/2                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 7 . 97
the interpretation of Article 2 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of Council             judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
Directive      89/552/EEC        of 3  October   1989    on   the      being Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
coordination of certain provisions laid down by law,                   Julian Currall ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed
regulation or administrative action in Member States                   of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), President of
concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities           the Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.
( OJ No L 298 , 17. 10. 1989, p. 23 ), — the Court ( Sixth             Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate
Chamber ) composed of: G. E Mancini, President of the                  General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the
Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn                Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 May 1997, in
( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                   which it :
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, gave a judgment on 29 May 1997, in
which it ruled :                                                       1 . dismisses the appeal;
1 . Article 2 (1 ) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of                  2 . orders the appellant to pay the costs.
      3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain
      provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                       O OJ No C 197, 6 . 7. 1996 .
      administrative action in Member State concerning the
      pursuit of television broadcasting activities is to be
      interpreted as meaning that a television broadcaster
       comes under the jurisdiction of the Member State in
      which it is established. The origin of programmes
       broadcast by the television broadcaster or their
       conformity with Articles 4 and 5 of the Directive are                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      irrelevant in determining the Member State having
      jurisdiction over such a broadcaster pursuant to                                        ( Sixth Chamber)
      Article 2 (1 ).                                                                           of 5 June 1997
                                                                       in Case C-285/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
2 . Article 2 (2) of Directive 89/552 is to be interpreted as          the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin): Suat Kol v. Land Ber
       meaning that a Member State may not oppose the                                                lin H
       retransmission on its territory of broadcasts of a
       television broadcaster over which another Member                 (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
      State has jurisdiction when those broadcasts do not              Council of Association — Free movement of workers —
       conform with the requirements of Articles 4 and 5 of            Legal employment — Periods of employment under a
       the Directive.                                                             residence permit fraudulently obtained)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/04 )
( ] ) OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           published in the European Court Reports)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 29 May 1997                              In Case C-285/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Oberverwaltungsgericht
in Case C-153/96 P: Jan Robert de Rijk v. Commission of                ( Higher Administrative Court) Berlin for a preliminary
                  the European Communities (')                         ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
 (Appeal — Officials — Supplementary sickness insurance                between Suat Kol and Land Berlin — on the interpretation
scheme for officials posted outside the Community —                    of Articles 6 ( 1 ) and 14 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 of
       Conditions for reimbursement of medical expenses)                19 September 1980 on the development of the
                                                                       Association, adopted by the Council of Association
                            ( 97/C 228/03                              established by the Association Agreement between the
                                                                       European Economic Community and Turkey — the Court
                  (Language of the case: French)                       ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
                                                                       of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, G. Hirsch, H.
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur ), Judges;
            published in the European Court Reports)                   M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
                                                                       Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                       judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
In Case C-153/96 P: Jan Robert de Rijk ( represented by
Nicolas Lhoest ) — appeal against the judgment of the
 Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber) of 7 March 1996              Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of 19 September 1980
 in Case T-362/94 De Rijk v. Commission [ 1996] ECR-SC                 on the development of the Association, adopted by the
 11-365 ( English abstract at p. 117 ), seeking to have that            Council of Association established by the Association


title: Case T-676/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Italian International Film v EACEA (Support programme for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) — Measures of support for the transnational distribution of European films — Call for proposals in connection with the ‘selective’ scheme 2013 — EACEA act informing the applicant of the rejection of its application for the film ‘Only God Forgives’ — EACEA act confirming the rejection but stating new reasons — Powers — Distribution of tasks between the Commission and the EACEA — Circumscribed powers — Actions for annulment — Challengeable act — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Permanent Guidelines 2012-2013 — Material or physical distribution agreement — Not communicated in advance to the EACEA — Application not eligible)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 February 2016 — Italian International Film v EACEA
   (Case T-676/13) (1)

   ((Support programme for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) - Measures of support for the transnational distribution of European films - Call for proposals in connection with the ‘selective’ scheme 2013 - EACEA act informing the applicant of the rejection of its application for the film ‘Only God Forgives’ - EACEA act confirming the rejection but stating new reasons - Powers - Distribution of tasks between the Commission and the EACEA - Circumscribed powers - Actions for annulment - Challengeable act - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Permanent Guidelines 2012-2013 - Material or physical distribution agreement - Not communicated in advance to the EACEA - Application not eligible))
   (2016/C 106/33)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian International Film Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Fratini, B. Bettelli and M. Bottino, lawyers)

      Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) (represented by: H. Monet and D. Homann, acting as Agents, and D. Fosselard and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application for a grant for the film ‘Only God Forgives’ following call for proposals EACEA/21/12 MEDIA 2007 — Support for the transnational distribution of European films — the ‘Selective’ scheme 2013 (OJ 2012 C 300, p. 5), published pursuant to Decision No 1718/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 concerning the implementation of a programme of support for the European audiovisual sector (MEDIA 2007) (OJ 2006 L 327, p. 12) for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Italian International Film Srl and the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case T-33/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — TestBioTech v Commission

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/36

         Action brought on 26 January 2016 — TestBioTech v Commission
   (Case T-33/16)
   (2016/C 136/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: TestBioTech eV (Munich, Germany) (represented by: K. Smith, QC, J. Stevenson, Barrister, R. Stein, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision dated 16 November 2015, which rejected the applicant’s request for internal review of the Commission implementing decisions (EU) 2015/686 (1), (EU) 2015/696 (2) and (EU) 2015/698 (3) of 24 April 2015 granting three market authorisations under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (4) (the ‘GM Regulation’) to Monsanto or Pioneer for their genetically modified soybeans MON 87769, MON 87705 and/or 305423;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs; and

               —

               order any other measure deemed appropriate.

      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 that the Commission’s conclusion that the vast majority of the request for internal review related to matters falling outside the scope of the Aarhus Regulation (5) violates Article 10(1) read in conjunction with Articles 2(f) and (g) and Recitals (11) and (18) to (21) of that Regulation.

                           —

                           A qualifying non-governmental organisation is entitled to make a request for internal review of an administrative act made under an environmental law. The GM Regulation is such a law. As a consequence, the organisation may request a review of any administrative act made under that law, including a market authorisation.

                           —

                           Taking into account both the terms and object and purpose of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998 (the ‘Aarhus Convention’) and the Aarhus Regulation, as well as the Aarhus Convention’s implementation guide, there is no basis for the Commission’s conclusions that it can carve up decisions made under the GM Regulation as being partly in-scope and outside the scope of the Aarhus Regulation.

                           —

                           Genetically modified organisms are elements of the environment. The Commission’s argument that the impact of such organisms on human health is not an environmental matter and therefore not covered by the Aarhus Regulation is fundamentally flawed.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s failure to respond to the request for internal review, submitted on 29 May 2015, before 16 November 2015 violated Article 10(3) of the Aarhus Regulation.

                           —

                           The Commission issued the contested decision on 16 November 2015, some twenty-four weeks after the request for internal review was submitted. The Commission failed to provide an adequate explanation for breaching the normal requirement that a response be provided within twelve weeks and, in any event, failed to meet the absolute deadline for responding within eighteen weeks.

      (1)  Commission implementing decision (EU) 2015/686 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON 87769 (MON-87769-7) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (OJ 2015 L 112, p. 16).

      (2)  Commission implementing decision (EU) 2015/696 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean MON87705 (MON-877Ø5-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (OJ 2015 L 112, p. 60).

      (3)  Commission implementing decision (EU) 2015/698 authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified soybean 305423 (DP-3Ø5423-1) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 (OJ 2015 L 112, p. 71).

      (4)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 1829/2003 of 22 September 2003 on genetically food and feed (OJ 2003 L 268, p. 1).

      (5)  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 1367/2006 of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).


               7.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 66/28

         Action brought on 4 December 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Case E-14/12)
   2013/C 66/08
   An action against the Principality of Liechtenstein was brought before the EFTA Court on 4 December 2012 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis, Clémence Perrin and Catherine Howdle, acting as Agents, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               by maintaining in force a legislation which imposes on persons resident in Liechtenstein who are responsible for a temporary work agency the obligation to supply a guarantee of CHF 50 000, whereas the guarantee of CHF 100 000 is imposed upon persons performing a similar function who are resident outside of Liechtenstein, and on agencies seeking to deliver temporary employment services cross-border, the Principality of Liechtenstein (‘Liechtenstein’) has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 31 and 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

               2.

               the Principality of Liechtenstein bears the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Liechtenstein has failed to comply with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 25 January 2012 on a failure to fulfil its obligation under Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement in the field of temporary work and employment services.

               —

               The Liechtenstein measures at issue are Articles 25 and 26 of Verordnung vom 11. Juli 2000 zum Gesetz über die Arbeitsvermittlung und den Personalverleih (Regulation of 11 July 2000 concerning job placement and temporary employment services).
               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that by these measures, Liechtenstein’s national legislation imposes on persons resident in that country who are responsible for a temporary work agency the obligation to supply a guarantee of CHF 50 000. By the same legislation, an obligation to supply a guarantee of CHF 100 000 when delivering temporary work services is imposed upon persons performing a similar function who are resident outside of Liechtenstein. A guarantee of CHF 100 000 is also required from temporary work agencies established outside of Liechtenstein who seek to provide such services cross-border.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that by maintaining in force its legislation, as it currently stands, Liechtenstein is in breach of its obligations under Articles 31 and 36 EEA.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 27 February 2002 in Case T-106/00: Streamserve Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Term STREAMSERVE — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Prior national registrations — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 144/41
3.    Orders the defendant to pay the costs.                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.                                                                         27 February 2002
                                                                          in Case T-106/00: Streamserve Inc. v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                          ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — Term STREAMSERVE — Absol-
                                                                          ute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Prior national registrations —
                                                                                Principle of non-discrimination)
                        27 February 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 144/87)
in Case T-79/00: Rewe Zentral AG v Office for Harmonis-
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                            (OHIM) (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Community trade mark — ‘LITE’ — Observance of the
rights of defence — Immaterial plea — Absolute ground for
   refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                          In Case T-106/00, Streamserve Inc., established in Raleigh,
                         (2002/C 144/86)                                  North Carolina (United States of America), represented by
                                                                          M. Nedstrand, lawyer, v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          munities (Agents: A. di Carlo and G. Humphreys): Action
                  (Language of the case: German)                          brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
                                                                          the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                          Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2000 (Case R 423/1999-
                                                                          2) concerning registration of the term STREAMSERVE as a
                                                                          Community trade mark, Court of First Instance (Fourth
In Case T-79/00, Rewe Zentral AG, established in Cologne                  Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and
(Germany), represented by M. Kinkeldey, lawyer, v Office for              R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 March 2002, in
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: initially V. Melgar and P. von Kapff,            which it:
and, subsequently, Melgar and G. Schneider): Action brought
against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 27 January 2000 (Case R 275/1999-3) concerning                1.    Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office
the registration of ‘LITE’ as a Community trade mark, the                       for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                          Designs) of 28 February 2000 (Case R 423/1999-2) as
P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos,                         regards goods in the categories ‘manuals’ and ‘publications’;
Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 27 February 2002, in which it:
                                                                          2.    For the rest, dismisses the application;
1.    Dismisses the application;                                          3.    Orders the applicant to bear it own costs and to pay two thirds
                                                                                of the defendant’s costs and orders the defendant to bear one
2.    Orders each party to bear its own costs.                                  third of its own costs.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.                                                (1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: Case T-87/12: Action brought on 23 February 2012 — Duff Beer v OHIM — Twentieth Century Fox Film (Duff)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/32

         Action brought on 23 February 2012 — Duff Beer v OHIM — Twentieth Century Fox Film (Duff)
   (Case T-87/12)
   2012/C 109/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Duff Beer UG (Eschwege, Germany) (represented by: N. Schindler, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation (Los Angeles, United States of America)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 12 December 2011 (Case R 0456/2011-4) and the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 14 January 2011 (No B 1 603 771);

               —

               order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, stay the proceedings until the delivery of final decisions on the application for revocation pending before OHIM under the reference number 000005227 C and the nullity of Community trade mark No 001341130 declared by the Court of Commerce of Brussels under the reference numbers 2009/6122 and 2009/6129.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘Duff’ in the colours black, white and red for goods and services in Classes 32, 35 and 41 (application No 8 351 091).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘Duff BEER’ (Community trade mark No 1 341 130) for goods in Class 32

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part for goods and services in Classes 32 and 35

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(2)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue and infringement of rule 20(7)(c) in conjunction with rule 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95 due to the Board of Appeal’s incorrect exercise of its discretion as regards the applicant’s application to suspend the appeal proceedings.


title: Case T-24/11: Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 September 2013 — Bank Refah Kargaran v Council
   (Case T-24/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection)
   2013/C 304/24
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank Refah Kargaran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented initially by F. Erlbacher and M. Konstantinidis, and subsequently by A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for (i) a declaration that Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) is inapplicable to the applicant; (ii) annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1), Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and Council Regulation (EU) No 1263/2012 of 21 December 2012 amending Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 34), and of all future regulations which might supplement or replace those regulations pending final judgment in the action, in so far as those acts concern the applicant; (iii) annulment of Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81), Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010 (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11), and Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71), and of all future measures which might supplement or replace those measures pending final judgment in the action, in so far as those measures concern the applicant; and (iv) annulment of the decisions contained in the letters of 28 October 2010 and 5 December 2011.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the following measures in so far as they concern Bank Refah Kargaran:

                           —

                           Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010, and subsequently by Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011;

                           —

                           Decision 2010/644;

                           —

                           Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007, as amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2011 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation No 961/2010;

                           —

                           Decision 2011/783;

                           —

                           Implementing Regulation No 1245/2011;

                           —

                           Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 961/2010;

               2.

               Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2010/644 and subsequently by Decision 2011/783, to be maintained as regards Bank Refah Kargaran until the annulment of Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 takes effect, in so far as it concerns Bank Refah Kargaran;

               3.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the application for a declaration that Decision 2010/413 is not applicable to Bank Refah Kargaran;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Bank Refah Kargaran;

               6.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of 13 January 2004 in Case C-440/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht ): Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG v Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG (Social policy — Articles 4 and 11 of Directive 94/45/EC — European Works Councils — Informing and consulting employees in Community-scale undertakings — Group of undertakings whose central management is not located in a Member State)

text:
21.2.2004                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 47/1
                                                                           I
                                                                    (Information)
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              the Community’ in Article 19(1) of Regulation No 1768/92
                                                                                refers solely to the first authorisation required under provisions
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                           on medicinal products, within the meaning of Council Directive
                                                                                65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of
                       of 11 December 2003                                          provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action
                                                                                relating to proprietary medicinal products, granted in any of the
in Case C-127/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                                Member States, and does not therefore refer to authorisations
from the Bundesgerichtshof): Hässle AB v Ratiopharm                                 required under legislation on pricing of or reimbursement for
                               GmbH (1)                                             medicinal products.
(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Medicinal prod-                        3.    A supplementary protection certificate which, contrary to the
ucts — Supplementary protection certificate — Articles 15                           requirements of Article 19 of Regulation No 1768/92, has
and 19 — Validity of Article 19 — Concept of ‘first                                 been delivered where the first marketing authorisation in the
authorisation to place ... on the market in the Community’                          Community was obtained prior to the relevant date fixed by
— Legal effects of non-compliance with the relevant date                            that provision is invalid pursuant to Article 15 thereof.
                      referred to in Article 19)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2002.
                           (2004/C 47/01)
                    (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 13 January 2004
In Case C-127/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary                       in Case C-440/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                   the Bundesarbeitsgericht ): Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne
Hässle AB and Ratiopharm GmbH, on the interpretation of                        & Nagel AG & Co. KG v Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG (1)
Articles 15 and 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92
of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary                    (Social policy — Articles 4 and 11 of Directive 94/45/EC —
protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182,                 European Works Councils — Informing and consulting
p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris,                    employees in Community-scale undertakings — Group of
acting for the President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,                          undertakings whose central management is not located in a
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rappor-                                                  Member State)
teur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a                                                  (2004/C 47/02)
judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
1.    Consideration of the second question referred has disclosed no
      factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 19 of Council
      Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for                                   in the European Court Reports)
      medicinal products.
2.    So far as concerns medicinal products for human use, the                In Case C-440/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
      concept of ‘first authorisation to place ... on the market ... in       EC by the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/2                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             21.2.2004
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 2.    The obligation to provide information deriving from
Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG and                               Articles 4(1) and 11(1) of the Directive encompasses infor-
Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG, on the interpretation of Articles 4                    mation on the average total number of employees and their
and 11 of Council Directive 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994                         distribution across the Member States, the establishments of
on the establishment of a European Works Council or a                             the undertaking and the group undertakings, and on the
procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-                          structure of the undertaking and of the undertakings in the
scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing                        group, as well as the names and addresses of the employee
and consulting employees (OJ 1994 L 254, p. 64), the Court,                       representation which might participate in the setting up of a
composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann and J.N. Cunha                        special negotiating body in accordance with Article 5 of the
Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puisso-                  Directive or in the establishment of a European Works
chet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and                       Council, where that information is essential to the opening of
S. von Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-                            negotiations for the establishment of such a council.
F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 13 January 2004, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
1.   Articles 4(1) and 11(1) of Council Directive 94/45/EC of
     22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works
     Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and
     Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of
     informing and consulting employees must be interpreted as
     meaning that:
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     —     where, in a situation such as that at issue before the                                    of 13 January 2004
           national court, the central management of a Community-
           scale group of undertakings is not located in a Member           in Case C-453/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
           State, central management’s responsibility for providing         the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven): Kühne &
           the employees’ representatives with the information essen-          Heitz NV v Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren (1)
           tial to the opening of negotiations for the establishment
           of a European Works Council lies with the deemed
           central management under the second subparagraph of              (Poultrymeat — Export refunds — Failure to refer a question
           Article 4(2) of the Directive;                                   for a preliminary ruling — Final administrative decision —
                                                                            Effect of a preliminary ruling given by the Court after that
                                                                            decision — Legal certainty — Primacy of Community law
                                                                                — Principle of cooperation — Article 10 EC)
     —     where central management does not, for the purpose of
           establishing a European Works Council, make certain
           information available to the deemed central management                                      (2004/C 47/03)
           under the second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of the
           Directive, the latter, in order to be able to fulfil its
           obligation to provide information to the employees’                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
           representatives, must request the information essential to
           the opening of negotiations for the establishment of such
           a council from the other undertakings belonging to the           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
           group which are located in the Member States, and has a                              in the European Court Reports)
           right to receive that information from them;
     —     the management of each of the other undertakings                 In Case C-453/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
           belonging to the group which are located in the Member           EC by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Nether-
           States is under an obligation to supply the deemed               lands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
           central management under the second subparagraph of              before that court between Kühne & Heitz NV and Productschap
           Article 4(2) of the Directive with the information               voor Pluimvee en Eieren, on the interpretation of Community
           concerned where it is in possession of the information or        law and, in particular, the principle of cooperation arising
           is in a position to obtain it;                                   from Article 10 EC, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris,
                                                                            President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann,
                                                                            J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers,
                                                                            D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
     —     the Member States concerned are to ensure that the               F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;
           management of those other undertakings supplies the              P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,
           information to the deemed central management under the           for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 January 2004,
           second subparagraph of Article 4(2) of the Directive.            in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-302/03: Action brought on 4 September 2003 by PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 264/36               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             1.11.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —     In determining the injury caused by another known
                                                                                injurious factor, namely imports from Taiwan were
                                                                                not attributed to the subsidised imports, the Council
—     annul the Council Regulation (EC) 960/2003 of 2 June,                     committed a manifest error of assessment in the appli-
      insofar as it applies to the Applicant; and                               cation of Articles 8(6) and (7) of the Basic Anti-Cubsidy
                                                                                Regulation.
—     order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of
      the procedure.                                                      —     In determining that injury caused by another known
                                                                                injurious factor, namely the alleged anti-competitive
                                                                                discrimantory pricing by the Community supplier of
                                                                                technology, was not attributed to the subsidied imports,
                                                                                the Council did not follow the correct procedures for the
                                                                                application of Articles 8(6) and (7) of the Basic anti-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Subsidy Regulation.
The applicant in the present case is a company formed under               (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 960/2003 of 2 June 2003 imposing
the laws of India manufacturing recordable compact disks                      a definitive countervailing duty on imports of recordable compact
(CD-Rs), rewritable compacts disks (CD-RWs) and read only                     disks originating in India (OJ L 138 of 5.6.2003, p. 1).
memory compact disks (CD-ROMs). In addition, it manufac-
tures other forms of storage media, and notably micro-
diskettes, in an export processing zone (EPZ).
Following a complaint lodged by the Community producers
of CD-Rs, grouped in Association CECMA, pursuant to which
the Commission announced the initiation of parallel anti-
dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings against imports into
the European Community of CD-Rs originating in India. The                 Action brought on 4 September 2003 by PTV Planung
anti-dumping proceedings having been terminated without the               Transport Verkehr AG against the Office for Harmonis-
adoption of measures, the present procedure concerns only                 ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
the countervailing proceedings against CD-Rs that culminated                                              (OHIM)
in the contested Regulation, imposing countervailing duties of
7,3 % on imports of recordable compact disks originating in
India. (1).                                                                                (Case T-302/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 264/64)
In support of its application the applicant submits that:
—     In determining 4,2 years as the period over which the                                   (Language of the case: German)
      alleged subsidy should be allocated, the Council made a
      manifest error of assessment in the determination of
      the normal depreciation of the applicant’s plant and
      machinery, and infringed Articles 5, 7(3) and 11(1) of the
      Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and Article 253 EC.                   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
—     The contested Regulation should be invalid because                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      during the administrative procedure, an incomprehen-                4 September 2003 by PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG,
      sible explanation of the calculation of the 4.2 years was           Karlsruhe (Germany), represented by F. Nielsen, lawyer.
      provided to the applicant in violation of the rights of
      defence, or, alternatively, in violation of Article 253.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     In analysing the consequent impact of imports from India
      into the Community industry and also the question as to             —     annul the decision of 1 July 2003 of the Second Board of
      whether such imports were causing injury to this industry                 Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      the Council failed to carry out an objective examination                  Market (Case R 1046/2001-2);
      of all the relevant evidence as required by Articles 8(2)
      and (6) of the Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation and/or
      committed a series of manifests errors of assessment.               —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- 1.11.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 264/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark          The word mark ‘map&guide’ —               Applicant for Com-            The applicant in this casey
sought:                       application No 2089829                    munity trade mark:
Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 9,          Community trade mark          The word mark ‘NEXAVAR’ for
                              41 and 42 (computer software,             sought:                       goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical
                              conducting training events for                                          and veterinary preparations, diag-
                              computer software and computer                                          nostic preparations for medicinal
                              programming)                                                            purposes)      —       Application
                                                                                No 1534213
Decision         contested    Refusal by the examiner to register
before the Board of           the mark in respect of ‘computer          Proprietor of mark or         Sanofi-Synthelabo           (Société
Appeal:                       software’ and ‘computer program-          sign cited in the oppo-       Anonyme)
                              ming’                                     sition proceedings:
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal                   Mark or sign cited in         The national word mark ‘BESA-
Appeal:                                                                 opposition:                   VAR’ for goods in Class 5 (pharm-
                                                                                aceutical preparations)
Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Regulation (EC) No 40/94                  Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                        sition Division:
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                        Appeal:                       Opposition Division and refusal
                                                                                of the application
                                                                        Pleas in law:                 There is no similarity between
                                                                                the marks which could lead to
Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Bayer AG                                                        confusion
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-304/03)
                         (2003/C 264/65)
                                                                        Action brought on 4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeut-
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)       sche Handelsgesellschaft mbH against the Office for
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was       Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and
                        submitted: German)                                                      Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case T-307/03)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                       (2003/C 264/66)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
8 September 2003 by Bayer AG, Leverkusen (Germany),                     (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
represented by M. Wolpert, lawyer. Sanofi-Synthelabo (Société           of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
Anonyme), Paris, was also a party to the proceedings before                                     submitted: German)
the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
—     amend the decision of 4 June 2003 of the Fourth Board             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal         4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft
      Market (Case R 452/2002-4) and reject the opposition;             mbH, represented by U. Schuster, lawyer. Kaufring AG,
                                                                        Düsseldorf (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.          before the Board of Appeal.


title: Case C-34/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Roma, Terza Sezione Lavoro by order of 24 January 2002 in the case of Sante Pasquini against INPS (Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale)

text:
C 84/52                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6.4.2002
      2.    permitting non-binding emission guide values in                 in Annex II, the provisions of Article 7, which contains
            certain cases, under Paragraph 8(3) of the BMwA                 the emission limit values for exhaust gases, have been
            Regulation, contrary to the requirement imposed                 complied with, the Austrian rules provide that for certain
            by Article 3(4) of the directive concerning the                 coincineration plants, the authorities are, in individual
            determination of binding emission limit values;                 cases, to lay down emission guide values for individual
                                                                            pollutants.
      3.    failing to set limit values for heavy metal, dioxin
            and furan emissions in exhaust gases at cement             —    Infringe Article 7(1) and (2) of the directive (failure to lay
            production plants under Paragraph 15(1) of the                  down limit values for heavy metal, dioxin and furan
            BMwA Regulation, contrary to Article 7(1) and (2)               emissions in exhaust gases at cement production plants):
            of the directive;                                               Contrary to Article 7(1) and (2) of the directive, the
                                                                            Republic of Austria has not laid down limit values for
      4.    laying down criteria for compliance with emission               heavy metal, dioxin and furan emissions in exhaust
            limit values in Paragraph 10(5) no. 2 of the BMwA               gases at cement production plants in which waste is
            Regulation which contravene Article 11(3) of the                coincinerated.
            directive; and
                                                                       —    Infringe the first paragraph of Article 11(3) of the
                                                                            directive (compliance criteria for limit values):
      5.    laying down transitional provisions in Para-
            graph 19(1) of the Verordnung des Bundesministers               Contrary to the first indent of Article 11(3) which
            für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie über die Verbren-                specifies the circumstances in which emission limit
            nung von gefährlichen Abfällen (Regulation of the               values are deemed to be complied with, the Austrian
            Federal Minister for Environment, Youth and the                 Government has laid down rules which provide that
            Family on the incineration of hazardous substances)             emission limit values are only exceeded where more than
            and Paragraph 16(2) of the BMwA Regulation which                3 % of the half-hourly averages exceed the emission limit
            exempt existing plants from the application of the              value by more than 20 %. That threshold of 20 % is not,
            directive for the period from 31 December 1996 to               however, contained in the directive.
            1 February 1999, contrary to Article 13(1) in
            conjunction with Article 2(3) of the directive.            —    Infringe Article 13(1) in conjunction with Article 18(1)
                                                                            of the directive (entry into force and transitional pro-
—     order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                       visions for existing plants):
                                                                            Contrary to the directive, Austria treats plants which were
                                                                            granted permits between 31 December 1996 and the
                                                                            date of transposition of the directive (1 February 1999)
                                                                            as ‘existing plants’. Consequently, under Austrian law,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            incineration plants which were granted permits between
                                                                            31 December 1996 and 1 February 1999 were covered
The Commission has reached the conclusion that the pro-                     by the transitional period until 30 June 2000, whereas,
visions in force in Austria do not fully comply with the                    according to the directive, such plants should have fallen
provisions of Directive 94/67 EC, namely, in that they:                     fully within the scope of the directive from the time of
                                                                            their authorisation.
—     Infringe Article 3(3) of the directive (for coincineration,
      maximum of 40 % of total heat released in the plant):
      Contrary to Article 3(3), which lays down a total heat
      release from a plant of a maximum of 40 % from the
      incineration of hazardous wastes ‘at each moment of its
      operation’, the provisions in force in Austria permit            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
      plants to operate with a total heat release of more than         Roma, Terza Sezione Lavoro by order of 24 January 2002
      40 % , and in certain circumstances exclusively, from the        in the case of Sante Pasquini against INPS (Istituto
      incineration of hazardous wastes, over lengthy operating                      Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale)
      periods (e.g, for a number of days or even weeks).
      (Calculation on the basis of quarterly averages)
                                                                                (Case C-34/02)
—     Infringe the second paragraph of Article 3(4) of the
      directive (determination of emission guide values):                                      (2002/C 84/92)
      Contrary to the second indent of Article 3(4) of the
      directive which provides that the permit for a coinciner-
      ation plant is only to be granted if it is demonstrated in       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      the application that, according to calculations laid down        European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Roma,
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 84/53
Terza Sezione (Rome District Court, Third Employment                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Chamber) of 24 January 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 8 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Sante Pasquini against INPS (Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza            —     Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
Sociale [National Social Welfare Institution]) on the following                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
questions:                                                                        Commission Directive 1999/48/EC(1) of 21 May 1999
                                                                                adapting for the second time to technical progress
                                                                                Council Directive 96/49/EC (2) on the approximation of
                                                                                the laws of the Member States with regard to the transport
Is a provision of national law, which provides, without any                       of dangerous goods by rail or in any event by not
time-limit and thus, in breach of the principle of legal certainty,               notifying the same to the Commission, the Italian Repub-
for the recovery of an undue payment arising from the                             lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
application of Community legislation, compatible with the
objectives of Council Regulations No 1408/71 (1) and
574/72 (2)?                                                                 —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Are the Community provisions cited in (1) to be interpreted as
precluding the application of a provision of national law which             Pleas in law and main arguments
does not lay down time-limits for the recovery of undue
payments arising from the belated or improper application of
the relevant Community provisions?
                                                                            Article 189 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC), which
                                                                            provides that a directive is to be binding as to the result to be
                                                                            achieved on each Member State to which it is addressed,
Is it possible, given that the transitional rules for the application       implies an obligation that the Member States comply with the
of the social security regulations provide for a time-limit of              time-limits for transposition prescribed by directives. In the
two years in which to claim, with retrospective effect, the                 present case the prescribed period expired on 1 July 1999
rights conferred by those regulations, to apply a contrario the             without the Italian Republic having adopted the provisions
same time-limit of two years from notification of recovery of               necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
undue payment in cases of reduction of rights previously                    Commission’s claim.
conferred, except where more favourable time-limits are laid
down by national law, and provided that the person concerned
is not guilty of improper conduct?
                                                                            (1) OJ 1999 L 169, p. 58.
                                                                            (2) OJ 1996 L 235, p. 25.
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-18/99 (1)
Action brought on 19 February 2002 by the Commission                                                   (2002/C 84/94)
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                           (Case C-50/02)
                                                                            By order of 6 November 2001 the President of the Fourth
                                                                            Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                           (2002/C 84/93)                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case C-18/99:
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities v Aiolika Parka
                                                                            Siteias AE.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 February                 (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Wolfcarius and R. Amorosi, acting as
Agents.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 3 December 1998 in Case C-67/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kriminalret i Frederikshavn): Criminal proceedings against Ditlev Bluhme (Free movement of goods - Prohibition of quantitative restrictions and measures having equivalent effect between Member States - Derogations - Protection of the health and life of animals - Bees of the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera (Læsø brown bee))

text:
C 20/12               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.1.1999
Wales), Queen's Bench Division (United Kingdom), for a                    may be authorised under the abridged procedure
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                 provided for in Article 4.8(a)(iii) of Directive
court between The Queen and The Licensing Authority                       65/65/EEC, as amended, for all dosage forms, doses
established by the Medicines Act 1968 (acting by The                      and dosage schedules already authorised for that
Medicines Control Agency), ex parte: Generics (UK) Ltd,                   product.
intervener: E. R. Squibb & Sons Limited, between The
Queen and The Licensing Authority established by the
Medicines Act 1968 (represented by The Medicines                     4. The fact that the original or abridged applications for
Control Agency), ex parte: The Wellcome Foundation                        marketing authorisations were made before entry into
Limited and between The Queen and The Licensing                           force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 541/95 of
Authority established by the Medicines Act 1968                           10 March 1995 concerning the examination of
(represented by The Medicines Control Agency), ex parte:                  variations to the terms of a marketing authorisation
Glaxo Operations UK Ltd and Others, intervener:                           granted by a competent authority of a Member State
Generics (UK) Ltd, on the interpretation and validity of                  does not affect the answers to the second and third
Article 4.8(a)(iii) of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of                     questions.
26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid
down by law, regulation or administrative action relating,
to medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition
1965Ð1966, p. 20), as amended by Council Directive                   5. Consideration of the fifth question has not disclosed
87/21/EEC of 22 December 1986 (OJ L 15, 17.1.1987,                        any factor of such a nature as to affect the validity of
p. 36) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P.                    Article 4.8(a)(iii) of Directive 65/65/EEC, as amended.
Puissochet, President of Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), L. Sevón and M.                    (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997.
Wathelet,       Judges;      D.     Ruiz-Jarabo      Colomer,
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
given a judgment on 3 December 1998, in which it has
ruled:
1. Article 4.8(a)(iii) of Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
    by law, regulation or administrative action relating to
    medicinal products, as amended by Council Directive                                    of 3 December 1998
    87/21/EEC of 22 December 1986, must be interpreted
    as meaning that a medicinal product is essentially               in Case C-67/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from the
    similar to an original medicinal product where it                Kriminalret i Frederikshavn): Criminal proceedings against
    satisfies the criteria of having the same qualitative and                                 Ditlev Bluhme (1)
    quantitative composition in terms of active principles,
                                                                     (Free movement of goods Ð Prohibition of quantitative
    of having the same pharmaceutical form and of being
                                                                     restrictions and measures having equivalent effect between
    bioequivalent, unless it is apparent in the light of
                                                                     Member States Ð Derogations Ð Protection of the health
    scientific knowledge that it differs significantly from
                                                                     and life of animals Ð Bees of the subspecies Apis
    the original product as regards safety or efficacy. The
                                                                                mellifera mellifera (Lñsù brown bee))
    competent authority of a Member State may not
    disregard the three criteria set out above when it is                                      (1999/C 20/19)
    required to determine whether a particular medicinal
    product is essentially similar to an original medicinal
    product.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
2. A medicinal product that is essentially similar to a
    product which has been authorised for not less than                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    six or ten years and is marketed in the Member State                       published in the European Court Reports)
    for which the application is made may be authorised,
    under the abridged procedure provided for in Article
    4.8(a)(iii) of Directive 65/65/EEC, as amended, for all          In Case C-67/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
    therapeutic indications already authorised for that              of the EC Treaty by the Kriminalret i Frederikshavn
    product.                                                         (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
                                                                     proceedings before that court against Ditlev Bluhme Ð on
                                                                     the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty and
                                                                     Article 2 of Council Directive 91/174/EEC of 25 March
3. A medicinal product that is essentially similar to a              1991 laying down zootechnical and pedigree requirements
    product which has been authorised for not less than              for the marketing of pure-bred animals and amending
    six or ten years in the Community and is marketed in             Directives 77/504/EEC and 90/425/EEC (OJ L 85,
    the Member State for which the application is made               5.4.1991, p. 37) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
 ---pagebreak--- 23.1.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 20/13
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C.                of new Member States to the European Union (OJ L 1,
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur)               1.1.1995, p. 1) Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed
and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General;              of: D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting as President of
H. von Holstein, Registrar, has given a judgment on                  the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; G.
3 December 1998 in which it has ruled:                               Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 December 1998 in
                                                                     which it has ruled:
1. A national legislative measure prohibiting the keeping
     on an island such as Lñsù of any species of bee other
     than the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera (Lñsù              Article 99 of the Act concerning the conditions of
     brown bee) constitutes a measure having an effect               accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of
     equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the             Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
     meaning of Article 30 of the EC Treaty.                         to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded,
                                                                     as amended by Council Decision 95/1/EC, Euratom,
                                                                     ECSC of 1 January 1995 adjusting the instruments
2. A national legislative measure prohibiting the keeping            concerning the accession of new Member States to the
     on an island such as Lñsù of any species of bee other           European Union, is to be interpreted as not having
     than the subspecies Apis mellifera mellifera (Lñsù              permitted the Republic of Finland to levy, for a period of
     brown bee) must be regarded as justified, under                 three years from its accession to the Community on
     Article 36 of the Treaty, on the ground of the                  1 January 1995, customs duties on imports of products
     protection of the health and life of animals.                   which had already been released into free circulation in
                                                                     another Member State.
(1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (First Chamber)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                     of 3 December 1998                                                     (First Chamber)
in Case C-233/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                 of 3 December 1998
the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus (Finland)): Proceedings                   in Case C-247/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                  brought by KappAhl Oy (1)                          the Cour de Cassation): Marcel Schoonbroodt, Marc
(Free movement of goods Ð Products in free circulation               Schoonbroodt, Transports A. M. Schoonbroodt SPRL v.
Ð Act of Accession of the Republic of Austria, the                                           Belgian State (1)
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden Ð                      (Article 177 of the EC Treaty Ð Jurisdiction of the Court
                  Derogations Ð Article 99)                          Ð National legislation reproducing Community provisions
                        (1999/C 20/20)                               Ð Relief from customs duties Ð Fuel on board motorised
                                                                            road vehicles Ð Definition of standard tanks')
                                                                                (1999/C 20/21)
                (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Case C-233/97: reference to the Court under Article 177                    published in the European Court Reports)
of the EC Treaty by the Uudenmaan Lääninoikeus
(Finland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
brought before that court by KappAhl Oy Ð on the                     In Case C-247/97, reference to the Court under Article 177
interpretation of Article 99 of the Act concerning the               of the EC Treaty by the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) for a
conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the                court between Marcel Schoonbroodt, Marc Schoonbroodt,
adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union              Transports A. M. Schoonbroodt SPRL and Belgian State
is founded (OJ C 241, 29.8.1994, p. 21), as amended by               Ð on the interpretation of Article 112 of Council
Council Decision 95/1/EC, Euratom, ECSC of 1 January                 Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up
1995 adjusting the instruments concerning the accession              a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ


title: Case C-157/09: Action brought on 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/25

         Action brought on 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-157/09)
   2009/C 180/44
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and W. Roels, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by approving and maintaining in force Article 6(1) of the Law of 3 April 1999 on the statutory regulation of the notary profession, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty establishing the European Community, in particular Articles 43 EC and 45 EC;

               —

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission objects, first, to the fact that the nationality requirement for access to, and practice of, the profession of notary represents a disproportionate impediment to the freedom of establishment of notaries who are nationals of another Member State that is enshrined in Article 43 EC. Although Article 45 EC provides for an exemption from the rules concerning the freedom of establishment, it does so only in respect of activities which are directly and specifically connected with the exercise of official authority. The Commission takes the view that the duties carried out by notaries under Netherlands law represent the exercise of official authority to only a very limited extent, and therefore that factor cannot serve to justify the impediment in the light of settled case-law relating to Article 45 EC.
   Second, the Commission submits that the nationality requirement is in any event inappropriate, in the light of Article 43 EC, for safeguarding a certain level of professional qualification that will ensure that consumers are protected. There is in fact another method — one that is far less of a hindrance to free movement — of guaranteeing the high level of qualification required for the work of a notary: the possibility of the host Member State demanding one of the compensatory measures provided for in Article 4 of Regulation 89/48/EEC. (1)

      (1)  Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).


title: Case T-208/06: Action brought on 8 August 2006 — Quinn Barlo and Others v Commission

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/52

         Action brought on 8 August 2006 — Quinn Barlo and Others v Commission
   (Case T-208/06)
   (2006/C 224/108)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Quinn Barlo Ltd (County Cavan, Ireland), Quinn Plastics NV (Geel, Belgium) and Quinn Plastics GmbH (Mainz, Germany) (represented by: W. Blau, F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               In main order, annul the decision insofar as it holds that the applicants have infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA Agreement (annulment of Articles 1 and 2 as they relate to the applicants);

               —

               in subsidiary order, annul Article 2 of the decision insofar as it relates to the applicants;

               —

               in further subsidiary order, annul Article 2 of the decision insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicants of EUR 9 million and to reduce the fine in line with the arguments of this application;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek the partial annulment of the Commission's Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates, by which the Commission found that the applicants had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a cartel which consisted of discussing prices, agreeing, implementing and monitoring price agreements either in form of price increases, or at least stabilisation of existing price levels, discussing the passing on of additional service costs to customers, exchange of commercially important and confidential market and/or company relevant information and participating in regular meetings and other contacts to facilitate the infringement.
   In support of their application, the applicants invoke two pleas in law.
   Firstly, the applicants submit that the contested decision is erroneous as it does not establish to the requisite standard of proof that the applicants participated in a single and common anti-competitive scheme and in a continuous infringement. Furthermore, the role of the applicant's representatives at four specific meetings is assessed incorrectly and, apart from the applicants presence at these four meetings, the contested decision contains no evidence that the applicants have engaged in any conduct that is characterised as unlawful in the decision.
   Secondly, the applicants invoke an infringement of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) due to an incorrect assessment of the duration of the alleged infringement, an incorrect assessment of the gravity of the alleged infringement and an incorrect assessment of the mitigating circumstances.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-391/12: Order of the General Court of 7 May 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Adveo Group International (UNITED OFFICE) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/11

         Order of the General Court of 7 May 2015 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Adveo Group International (UNITED OFFICE)
   (Case T-391/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 228/13)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter and S. Paul, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch and S. Hanne, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Adveo Group International, SA, formerly Unipapel Industria, Comercio y Servicios, SL (Tres Cantos, Spain) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 June 2012 (Case R 745/2011-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG and Adveo Group International, SA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant. The intervener shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 17.11.2012.


C 86/14                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                27.3.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                          under these Directives, and
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
those put forward in Case C-26/99 (2); the period laid
down in the directive expired on 31 May 1997.                        Ð order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
(1) OJ L 140, 13.6.1996, p. 30.
(2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
                                                                     be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                     Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                     Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
                                                                     down in the directive. That period expired on 1 July 1992
Action brought on 10 February 1999 by the Commission                 at the latest without the United Kingdom having enacted
of the European Communities against the United                       the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
                             Kingdom                                 referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
                         (Case C-39/99)
                         (1999/C 86/27)                              (1 ) OJ L 18, 24.1.1980, p. 26.
                                                                     (2 ) OJ L 117, 4.5.1983, p. 15.
                                                                     (3 ) OJ L 363, 13.12.1989, p. 27.
                                                                     (4 ) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 21.
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
10 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Mr Richard Wainwright,
Principal Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez
de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the                               Removal from the register of Case C-321/98 (1)
Commission, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                                                                                (1999/C 86/28)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     By order of 12 January 1999 the President of the Court of
Ð declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     or administrative provisions necessary to comply with:          removal from the register of Case C-321/98: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v. French Republic.
     Ð Council Directive 80/51/EEC (1) of 20 December
         1979 on the limitation of noise emissions from              (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998.
         subsonic aircraft;
     Ð Council Directive 83/206/EEC (2) of 21 April 1983
         amending Directive 80/51/EEC on the limitation of
         noise emissions from subsonic aircraft;
     Ð Council Directive 89/629/EEC (3) of 4 December                         Removal from the register of Case C-4/98 (1)
         1989 on the limitation of noise emissions from                                       (1999/C 86/29)
         civil subsonic jet aeroplanes;
     Ð Council Directive 92/14/EEC (4) of 2 March 1992               By order of 14 January 1999 the President of the Court of
         on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
         covered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of                  removal from the register of Case C-4/98 (reference for a
         Annex 16 to the Convention on International Civil           preliminary ruling from Sù- og Handelsretten): Calvin
         Aviation, second edition (1988)                             Klein Trademark Trust v. Cowboyland Aalborg A/S and
                                                                     Others.
     with respect to the territory of Gibraltar, or in any
     event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the          (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.


title: Case F-44/10: Action brought on 11 June 2010 — Lebedef v Commission

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/56

         Action brought on 11 June 2010 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-44/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/91
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting the applicant’s request for authorisation to stay in a place other than his place of employment during sick leave.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 13 August 2009 rejecting the request brought by the applicant for authorisation to stay in a place other than his place of employment during his sick leave from 3 August to 3 September 2009 and, in particular, during the period from 13 to 30 August 2009;

               —

               grant the applicant damages for non-material harm equivalent to 5 days’ remuneration, calculated on the basis of one twentieth of his monthly remuneration per day compensated;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 1998 in Case C-175/97: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Directive 93/89/EEC on the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain infrastructures - Non-transposition)

text:
2.5.98                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 137/3
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen,                    the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch, Judges; G.                President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
Tesauro, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for                Almeida (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward and J.-P.
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 March 1998, in                  Puissochet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.
which it has ruled:                                                      Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 March 1998,
                                                                         in which it:
1. properly construed, Article 10 of Council Directive 69/
     335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on                1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     the raising of capital, as amended by Directive 85/303/                  time limit the laws, regulations and administrative
     EEC, precludes the levying of 0,5 % duty on the                          provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     notarial deed recording the contribution of part of the                  93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by
     share capital paid up after the formation of a capital                   Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for
     company, where duty of 1 % has already been charged                      the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for
     on the whole of the nominal value of the share capital.                  the use of certain infrastructures, the French Republic
                                                                              has failed to fulfil its obligations within the meaning
                                                                              of the first subparagraph of Article 13(1) of that
2. Article 10 of Directive 69/335/EEC, as amended, gives                      Directive;
     rise to rights on which individuals may rely before
     national courts. Those courts are obliged to leave                  2. orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
     unapplied provisions of national law incompatible
     therewith.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 279, 12.11.1993, p. 32.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
(3) OJ L 156, 15.6.1985, p. 23.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 10 March 1998
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    in Joined Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95 (references for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg):
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                  T. Port GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)
                        of 5 March 1998                                  (Bananas Ð Common organisation of the market Ð
in    Case    C-175/97: Commission of the European                       Import regime Ð Framework Agreement on bananas Ð
              Communities v. French Republic (1)                                    GATT Ð Article 234 of the EC Treaty)
(Directive 93/89/EEC on the application by Member                                                 (98/C 137/06)
States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of
goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain                              (Language of the case: German)
             infrastructures Ð Non-transposition)
                          (98/C 137/05)                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Joined Cases C-364/95 and C-365/95: references to the
                                                                         Court pursuant to Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Finanzgericht (Finance Court), Hamburg, Germany, for a
          published in the European Court Reports)                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                         court between T. Port GmbH & Co. and Hauptzollamt
                                                                         Hamburg-Jonas Ð on the interpretation of Article 234 of
In Case C-175/97: Commission of the European                             the EC Treaty, on the validity of Commission Regulation
Communities (Agents: Michel Nolin and Laura Pignataro)                   (EC) No 478/95 of 1 March 1995 on additional rules for
v. French Republic (Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and                  the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as
Gautier Mignot) Ð application for a declaration that, by                 regards the tariff quota arrangements for imports of
failing to adopt, or in any event failing to notify, within              bananas into the Community and amending Regulation
the prescribed time limit, the laws, regulations and                     (EEC) No 1442/93 (2) and on the direct effect of the
administrative provisions necessary to comply with                       provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the                    (GATT) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez
application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles                Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet, R.
used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and                     Schintgen (Rapporteur), (Presidents of Chambers), G. F.
charges for the use of certain infrastructures (2), the                  Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations within              J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; M. B.
the meaning of the EC Treaty and under that Directive Ð                  Elmer, Advocate-General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Admini-