title: Cases T-274/08 and T-275/08: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2010 — Italy v Commission (EAGF — Clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAGF — Sums recoverable from the Italian Republic where there is non-recovery within the time-limits specified — Meaning of financial consequences — Receipt of interest — Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2010 — Italy v Commission
   (Cases T-274/08 and T-275/08) (1)

   (EAGF - Clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the EAGF - Sums recoverable from the Italian Republic where there is non-recovery within the time-limits specified - Meaning of financial consequences - Receipt of interest - Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005)
   2010/C 148/49
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Jimeno Fernández and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, in Case T-274/08, for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/396/EC of 30 April 2008 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for the 2007 financial year (OJ 2008 L 139, p. 33) in so far as it includes interest on the sums charged to the budget of the Italian State under Article 32(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), and, in Case T-275/08, for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/394/EC of 30 April 2008 on the clearance of the accounts of certain paying agencies in Germany, Italy and Slovakia concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year (OJ 2008 L 139, p. 22) in so far as it includes interest on the sums charged to the budget of the Italian State under Article 32(5) of Regulation No 1290/2005.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-274/08 and T-275/08 for the purposes of judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the actions;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case F-63/06: Action brought on  5 May 2006  — Mascheroni v Commission

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/42

         Action brought on 5 May 2006 — Mascheroni v Commission
   (Case F-63/06)
   (2006/C 178/79)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Mascheroni (Vergiate, Italy) (represented by: A. Vianello and G. Orelli, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Find and declare that the conduct of the applicant's hierarchical superior is unlawful.

               —

               Find and declare that such conduct is harmful and that the applicant suffered serious harm as a result thereof.

               —

               Declare that the applicant is entitled to be assisted by the Community in the proceedings that he intends to bring before the national court in respect of the harm suffered.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant claims that the conduct of his hierarchical superior was assessed by the appointing authority on the basis of unsubstantiated claims. The appointing authority moreover infringed various principles of law, such as the principles of non-discrimination, proportionality, non-abuse of powers, impartiality, objectivity, coherence, fairness and reasonableness.


C 48/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-193/95 (1)              and Case T-206/97 Olivier Brunet, Luigi Brusa, Peter
                        (1999/C 48/68)                             Cavendish, HeÂleÁne Chraye, Stella da Costa Santos,
                                                                   Tamara Diomede Basili, Christina Laso Sanz, GeÂrard
                                                                   Lhost, Carlos Martinez Mongay, Viriato Monteiro Da
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                   Silva, Nicolioulas Panagiotis, Carla Piccinni-Leopardi,
                                                                   Jorge Manuel Pinheiro De Jesus Ferreira, Angelo Salsi and
By order of 30 November 1998, the President of the First           Graham Willmott v. Commission of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Communities.
Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-193/95: Fintecna SpA v. Commission of the                   (1) OJ C 142, 10.5.1997, OJ C 166, 31.5.1997, OJ C 181,
European Communities.                                                  14.6.1997, OJ C 228, 26.7.1997, OJ C 318, 18.10.1997 and
                                                                       OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
(1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-292/97 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-25/97 ( )1
                                                                                (1999/C 48/71)
                        (1999/C 48/69)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   By order of 1 December 1998, the President of the Fourth
By order of 14 December 1998, the President of the First           Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
Communities ordered the removal from the register of               removal from the register of Case T-292/97: Assidomän
Case T-25/97: Michael Pulch v. Commission of the                   Kraft Products AB, AB Iggesunds Bruk, Korsnäs AB,
European Communities.                                              Modo Paper AB, Södra Cell AB, Stora Kopparbergs
                                                                   Bergslags AB and Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA) v.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                           Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 113, 11.4.1998.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-38/97,
T-77/97, T-107/97, T-139/97, T-154/97, T-162/97,
                  T-205/97 and T-206/97 (1)                                Removal from the register of Case T-67/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 48/70)                                                     (1999/C 48/72)
               (Language of the case: French)                                      (Language of the case: French)
By order of 15 December 1998 the President of the First            By order of 11 December 1998, the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities ruled that the                Communities ordered the removal from the register of
following cases be removed from the register: Case                 Case T-67/98: TheÂodore Giannakopoulos v. Commission
T-38/97 Lucette GeÂrard, Case T-77/97 JoseÂ Baiges Planas,         of the European Communities.
Viviane Baretti-Piazzi, David Broderick, Alessandro
Buttice, Peter Grasmann, Timothy Hayes, Louis Hersom,
                                                                   (1) OJ C 208, 4.7.1998.
Owen Jones, Jean-Louis Levy-Gorgeot, Saturno Mallia,
Fenardo Mazza, Yasmine Pire, William Richer, Josefa
Rodriguez Portero, Robert Smyth, Alain Van Hamme and
Fionnuala Walker, Case T-107/97 Suzanne Smetes, Case
T-139/97 Marc Blijweert, Manuel Carvalhosa, Rita
Lehmann, Annette Mills, Glenys Nichol, Jeffery Piper,
Francisco Sentieiro and Guy Thiry, Case T-154/97 Patricia                 Removal from the register of Case T-140/98 (1)
Brunko-Metzger, Mariette Colinet, Christiane Degueldre,                                    (1999/C 48/73)
Nicole Dumont, Emile Espagnet, Paul Fraix, Georgios
Katalagarianakis, Danielle Lardinois, Carlos Alberto Leite
Mateus, Liborio Licata, Alberto Piazzi, Cornelis Pot, Rita                         (Language of the case: French)
Sacca-George, Jacques Simon and Harry Waterschoot,
Case T-162/97 Albert Verleysen, Case T-205/97                      By order of 9 December 1998, the President of the Fourth
Christopher Atkin, David Cornwell and Paul Smeulders               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.1999            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/33
Communities ordered the removal from the register of               register of Case T-141/98: Filippos Pierros v. Commission
Case T-140/98: H v. Commission of the European                     of the European Communities.
Communities.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 358, 21.11.1998.
(1) OJ C 340, 7.11.1998.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case T-167/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/75)
       Removal from the register of Case T-141/98 (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                       (1999/C 48/74)
                                                                   By order of 27 November 1998, the President of the Third
                (Language of the case: Greek)                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                   Case T-167/98: Luc Verheyden v. Commission of the
By order of 18 November 1998, the President of the                 European Communities.
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ordered the removal from the                  (1) OJ C 378, 5.12.1998.


title: Case C-107/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy) lodged on 22 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy) lodged on 22 February 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Giorgio Fidenato
   (Case C-107/16)
   (2016/C 165/11)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court:

   Tribunale di Pordenone

      Criminal proceedings against:

   Giorgio Fidenato

      Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

               1.

               When requested to do so by a Member State, is the Commission required, for the purposes of Article 54(1) of Regulation No 178/2002, (1) to adopt emergency measures even if the Commission does not consider there to be a serious and evident risk to human and animal health or to the environment?

               2.

               If the Commission has notified the Member State that the conditions for the adoption of emergency measures do not exist, may the Member State take measures pursuant to Article 53 of Regulation No 178/2002?

               3.

               May the Member State, on the basis of the precautionary principle, adopt emergency measures pursuant to Article 34 of Regulation No 1829/2003 (2) even where the conditions of serious and evident risk are not present, and may it maintain such measures in force when the Commission, after examining the opinion of EFSA, notifies it that the conditions necessary for the adoption of emergency measures are not met?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety (OJ 2002 L 31, p 1).

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


title: Case T-11/16: Action brought on 18 January 2016 — De Masi v Commission

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/34

         Action brought on 18 January 2016 — De Masi v Commission
   (Case T-11/16)
   (2016/C 078/47)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Fabio De Masi (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: Prof. A. Fischer-Lescano)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 9 December 2015 on the application for access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission on the restrictive access to the documents of the Code of Conduct Group of 9 November 2015;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings and the costs of any intervening party, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, of which two concern the European Commission decision of 9 December 2015 and two concern the decision of 9 November 2015.

               —

               Regarding the European Commission decision of 9 December 2015

                           1.

                           First plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

                           The applicant submits that the decision of 9 December 2015 infringes the right to an appropriate decision on the confirmatory application decision, laid down in the aforementioned provision.

                           2.

                           Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 15(3) TFEU in conjunction with Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
                           The applicant also submits that the refusal of full access to the documents which the defendant issued concerning the Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) set up by the Council in addition infringes its right of scrutiny over those documents, which is guaranteed by the aforementioned provisions.

               —

               Regarding the European Commission decision of 9 November 2015

                           3.

                           Third plea in law: Infringement of the second paragraph of Article 230 TFEU in conjunction with Article 10(2) TEU in conjunction with obligations to provide information
                           The applicant claims in that regard that, as a Member of the European Parliament, he has a subjective right under primary law to full access to documents, in so far as those documents are necessary for the exercise of parliamentary scrutiny.

                           4.

                           Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the interinstitutional Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission
                           Lastly, the applicant claims that the decision of 9 November 2015 also infringes the aforementioned interinstitutional Framework Agreement, in the application of which the rationale of Article 230 TFEU — widest possible access to documents — must be observed.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-527/10 ( OJ C 227, 28.7.2012, p. 20 )

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/30

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-527/10
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 227 of 28 July 2012, p. 20
      )
   2012/C 258/55
   The OJ notice in Case T-527/10 Google v OHIM — G-mail (GMail) should read as follows:

      Order of the General Court of 6 June 2012 — Google v OHIM — G-mail (GMail)
      (Case T-527/10) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
      2012/C 258/55
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Google, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: G-mail GmbH (Los Angeles, United States) (represented by: S. Eble, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2010 (Case R 342/2010-4) in relation to opposition proceedings between Giersch Ventures LLC and Google, Inc.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                  The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2002 in Case T-70/98: Wolfgang Hilden v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Request for reclassification of grade — Action — New information — Reasonable delay — Inadmissibility)

text:
27.7.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 180/23
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                (Germany), represented by N. Lhoëst, avocat, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European
                         of 29 April 2002                                 Communities (Agents: J. Currall, C. Berardis-Kayser and
                                                                          F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — application for annulment of the
                                                                          Commission decision of 8 January 1998 dismissing the
in Case T-68/98: Stefan Jung v Commission of the Euro-                    applicant’s request for a reclassification of his grade —
                       pean Communities (1)                               the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
                                                                          B. Vesterdorf, President, and N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
(Officials — Application for reclassification in grade —                  H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 April 2002 the
Action — New facts — Reasonable period — Inadmissi-                       operative part of which is as follows:
                                 bility)
                                                                          1.   The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                          (2002/C 180/38)
                                                                          2.   The parties are to bear their own costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
In Case T-68/98: Stefan Jung, an official of the Commission of
the European Communities, resident in Luxembourg, rep-
resented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agents: J. Currall, C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Clotuche-
Duvieusart) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
decision of 17 December 1997 rejecting the applicant’s request                  ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for review of his classification in grade — the Court of
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                                       of 12 April 2002
President, N. J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 29 April 2002, the operative part
of which is as follows:                                                   in Case T-7/00: Hyper Srl v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                          (Action for annulment — Importation of television sets from
2.    Each party is to bear its own costs.                                               Turkey — No need to adjudicate)
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.                                                                          (2002/C 180/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          In Case T-7/00: Hyper Srl, established in Limena (Italy),
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                represented by D. Ehle and D. Ehle, lawyers, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agent: G. zur Hausen) — application for
                         of 29 April 2002                                 annulment of the Commission’s decision of 30 September
                                                                          1999 (REM 2/98) finding that remission of duties payable on
in Case T-70/98: Wolfgang Hilden v Commission of the                      the import of television sets from Turkey is not justified — the
                   European Communities (1)                               Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jae-
                                                                          ger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung,
(Officials — Request for reclassification of grade — Action               Registrar, made an order on 12 April 2002, the operative part
— New information — Reasonable delay — Inadmissibility)                   of which is as follows:
                          (2002/C 180/39)                                 1.   There is no need to adjudicate on the present application;
                                                                          2.   The Commission is to pay all the costs.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
In Case T-70/98: Wolfgang Hilden, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Trierweiler


title: Case C-144/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mestre (Italy) lodged on 24 March 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Asad Abdallah

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Mestre (Italy) lodged on 24 March 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Asad Abdallah
   (Case C-144/11)
   2011/C 152/30
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di pace di Mestre

      Party to the main proceedings

   Asad Abdallah

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude a provision of national law, such as Article 10a of Legislative Decree No 286 of 25 July 1998, which categorises as a crime, punishable by a fine of between EUR 5 000 and EUR 10 000, the mere act of entering, or of remaining in, the national territory, in breach of the provisions laid down in relation to immigration where the person who so enters or remains is a citizen of a third country?

               2.

               Can Article 2(2)(B) of Directive 2008/115/EC be construed as excluding from the scope of the guarantees laid down in that directive deportation by way of alternative penalty, as provided for in Article 16(1) of Legislative Decree No 286 of 25 July 1998, for the crime consisting in the mere act of entering, or of remaining in, the national territory, as laid down in Article 10a of Legislative Decree No 286 of 25 July 1998?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case C-690/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Douai — France) — Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Officials of the European Union — Staff Regulations — Compulsory affiliation to the social security scheme of the EU institutions — Real estate income received in a Member State — Liability to pay General Social Contribution, social levy and additional contributions under the law of a Member State — Participating in the funding of the social security scheme of that Member State)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d’appel de Douai — France) — Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics
   (Case C-690/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Officials of the European Union - Staff Regulations - Compulsory affiliation to the social security scheme of the EU institutions - Real estate income received in a Member State - Liability to pay General Social Contribution, social levy and additional contributions under the law of a Member State - Participating in the funding of the social security scheme of that Member State))
   (2017/C 239/11)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour administrative d’appel de Douai

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wenceslas de Lobkowicz

      Defendant: Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, and the provisions of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the joint social security scheme of the EU institutions must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that income from real estate received in a Member State by an official of the European Union who has his or her domicile for tax purposes in that Member State is subject to contributions and social levies that are allocated for the funding of the social security scheme of that same Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Case F-44/12: Action brought on 2 April 2012 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/25

         Action brought on 2 April 2012 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-44/12)
   2012/C 184/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the proposals to transfer pension rights acquired before entry into service with the Commission on the basis of the calculation taking into account the new GIP entering into force after the applications for transfer by the applicants.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions rejecting the applicants’ complaints and requiring the application of the GIP and the actuarial rates in force when they applied to transfer their pension rights;

               —

               If necessary, annul the decisions concerning the calculation of the pension rights acquired before entry into service with the Commission to be credited;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-265/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of goods — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement — Quantitative restrictions on imports — Measures having equivalent effect — Motor vehicles — Affixing of tinted film to windows)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-265/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of goods - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement - Quantitative restrictions on imports - Measures having equivalent effect - Motor vehicles - Affixing of tinted film to windows)
   (2008/C 128/08)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Caeiros, P. Guerra e Andrade and M. Patakia, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, Agent, and by A. Duarte de Almeida, lawyer)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — National legislation prohibiting the affixing of tinted film to the windows of passenger or goods vehicles
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that, by prohibiting in Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 of 11 March 2003 the affixing of tinted film to the windows of motor vehicles, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the European Economic Area;

               2)

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case F-26/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 March 2010 — N v Parliament (Staff cases — Officials — Action for damages — Admissibility — Psychological harassment — Duty of care — Non-material damage)

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/51

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 9 March 2010 — N v Parliament
   (Case F-26/09) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Action for damages - Admissibility - Psychological harassment - Duty of care - Non-material damage)
   2010/C 134/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: N (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: K. Zejdová and R. Ignătescu, Agents)

      Re:

   An order that the Parliament pay the applicant the sum of EUR 12 000 by way of compensation for the harm suffered, first, on account of the psychological and professional harassment to which she was subject and, secondly, on account of there being no internal administrative investigation by an independent body.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay N compensation in the amount of EUR 2 000;

               2.

               For the rest, dismisses the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of N's cost

               4.

               Orders N to bear one quarter of her own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 153 of 04. 07. 2009, p. 51.


title: Case C-185/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/83/EC — Articles 5 and 6 — Proprietary medicinal products — Medicinal products for human use — Marketing authorisation — Legislation of a Member State exempting medicinal products similar to but cheaper than authorised products from marketing authorisation)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-185/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/83/EC - Articles 5 and 6 - Proprietary medicinal products - Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation - Legislation of a Member State exempting medicinal products similar to but cheaper than authorised products from marketing authorisation)
   2012/C 151/05
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 6 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Legislation of a Member State permitting medicinal products having a lower price and characteristics similar to authorised products to be marketed in that State without prior authorisation

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 4 of the Law on Medicinal Products (Prawo farmaceutyczne) of 6 September 2001, as amended by the Law of 30 March 2007, inasmuch as that statutory provision dispenses with the requirement for a marketing authorisation for medicinal products from abroad which have the same active substances, the same dosage and the same form as those having obtained a marketing authorisation in Poland, on condition that, in particular, the price of those imported medicinal products is competitive in relation to the price of products having obtained such authorisation, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case T-343/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Etimine and Etiproducts v ECHA (Action for annulment — REACH — Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern — No direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/22

         Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — Etimine and Etiproducts v ECHA
   (Case T-343/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - REACH - Identification of boric acid and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous as substances of very high concern - No direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 340/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Etimine SA (Bettembourg, Luxembourg); and AB Etiproducts Oy (Espoo, Finland) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä and W. Broere, Agents and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents, and by K. Sawyer, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the ECHA, published on 18 June 2010, identifying boric acid (EC No 233-139-2) and disodium tetraborate, anhydrous (EC No 215-540-4) as substances meeting the criteria referred to in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1), and including those substances in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to Regulation No 1907/2006, in accordance with Article 59 of that regulation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Etimine SA and AB Etiproducts Oy shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-405/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage by order of that Court of 28 August 2003 in the proceedings between Class International BV and 1. Colgate-Palmolive Company, 2. Unilever NV, 3. Smithkline Beecham PLC, and 4. Beecham Group PLC

text:
C 304/12              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         13.12.2003
1.   Is Article 12 of the EC Treaty (as amended by the                        territory of a Member State, of original branded goods
     Treaty of Amsterdam) to be interpreted as meaning that                   (bearing a trade mark within the meaning of the afore-
     Paragraph 1a(1)1, Paragraph 10(1)1 of the Einkommen-                     mentioned directive, the UBL and/or Regulation No 40/
     steuergesetz, to the effect that a taxpayer resident in                  94) which have not been introduced into the EEA by the
     Germany is not entitled to deduct maintenance payments                   proprietor of the trade mark or with his consent, which
     to his divorced spouse resident in Austria whereas he                    come from outside the EEA and which have the customs
     would be entitled to do so were she still resident in                    status of non-Community goods (for example, T 1 or
     Germany, is incompatible therewith?                                      AAD)?
2.   If Question 1 is answered in the negative: is
     Article 18(1)EC to be interpreted as meaning that Para-             (3) Does it make any difference to the answers to Ques-
     graph 1a(1)1, Paragraph 10(1)1 of the Einkommensteuer-                   tions (1) and (2) whether or not, at the time of entering
     gesetz, to the effect that a taxpayer resident in Germany                the abovementioned territory, the final destination of
     is not entitled to deduct maintenance payments for his                   those goods is specified, or that no (purchase) agreement
     divorced spouse resident in Austria whereas he would be                  has or has yet been concluded with a customer in a third
     entitled to do so were she still resident in Germany, is                 country in respect of those goods?
     incompatible therewith?
                                                                         (4) In the context of answering Questions (1), (2) and (3), is
                                                                              it relevant whether there are additional circumstances,
                                                                              such as
                                                                              (a)   the circumstance that the trader, who is the owner
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te                            of the goods in question or in any event is entitled
’s-Gravenhage by order of that Court of 28 August 2003                              to dispose of them and/or engages in parallel trade,
in the proceedings between Class International BV and                               is established in one of the Member States;
1. Colgate-Palmolive Company, 2. Unilever NV, 3. Smith-
      kline Beecham PLC, and 4. Beecham Group PLC
                                                                              (b) the circumstance that those goods are being offered
                        (Case C-405/03)                                             for sale or sold by the trader established in a Member
                                                                                State, from that Member State, to another trader
                                                                                established in a Member State, whilst the place of
                        (2003/C 304/17)                                             delivery is not (yet) specified;
                                                                              (c)   the circumstance that those goods are being offered
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              for sale or sold by the trader established in a Member
European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te                                 State, from that Member State, to another trader
’s-Gravenhage (Regional Court of Appeal, The Hague) of                              established in a Member State, whilst the place of
28 August 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 Septem-                        delivery of the goods to be offered for sale or sold in
ber 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between                       that way is specified but the final destination is not,
Class International BV and 1. Colgate-Palmolive Company,                            whether or not with the expressly statement or
2. Unilever NV, 3. Smithkline Beecham PLC, and 4. Beecham                           contractual restriction that the goods involved are
Group PLC on the following questions:                                               non-Community (transit) goods;
(1) May the proprietor of a trade mark oppose the introduc-
     tion without his consent of goods from third countries,                  (d) the circumstance that those goods are being offered
     bearing a trade mark within the meaning of the directive                       for sale or sold by the trader established in a Member
     and/or of Regulation No 40/94 (1), into the territory of a                     State to a trader established outside the EEA, whilst
     Member State (in this case the territory of the Netherlands/                   the place of delivery and/or final destination of the
     Benelux countries) in the context of transit or transit                        goods may or may not be specified;
     trade as referred to below?
(2) Does ‘using [a sign] in the course of trade’ within                       (e)   the circumstance that those goods are being offered
     the meaning of the opening words of Article 5(1) in                            for sale or sold by the trader established in a Member
     conjunction with Article 5(3)(b) and (c) of the directive                      State to a trader established outside the EEA, who
     and the opening words of Article 9(1) in conjunction                           the (parallel) trader knows or has serious reason to
     with Article 9(2)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 cover                      suppose will resell or supply the goods in question
     the storing, in a customs office or warehouse within the                       to ultimate consumers within the EEA?
 ---pagebreak--- 13.12.2003             EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 304/13
(5) Must the term ‘offering’ in the provisions referred to in           Pleas in law and main arguments
     Question (1) be construed as also meaning the offering
     (for sale) of original branded goods (bearing a trade mark
     within the meaning of the directive, the UBL and/or                The period for transposition of the directive expired on 30 June
     Regulation 40/94) which are stored in a customs office             2002.
     or warehouse within the territory of a Member State,
     which have not been introduced into the EEA by the
                                                                        (1) OJ 2000 L 14 of 20.1.2000, p. 29.
     proprietor of the trade mark or with his consent, which
     come from outside the EEA and which have the status of
     non-Community goods (for example, T 1 or AAD), in the
     circumstances set out above in Questions (3) and (4)?
(6) With which of the parties does the burden of proof rest
     as regards the acts mentioned above under (1), (2) and             Action brought on 30 September 2003 by the Italian
     (5)?                                                               Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the                                 (Case C-430/03)
    Community trade mark (OJ L 11 of 14.1.1994, p. 1).
                                                                                (2003/C 304/19)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 30 September 2003 by the Italian Republic
                                                                        represented by Ivo M. Braguglia, acting as Agent and Maurizio
                                                                        Fiorilli, Avvocato dello Stato.
Action brought on 1 October 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        annul Commission Decision C(2003) 2587 def. of 22 July
                         (Case C-410/03)                                2003 in so far as it excludes from Community financing the
                                                                        following entries:
                         (2003/C 304/18)                                a)    Fruit and vegetables — ITALY — 1515 — Flat-rate
                                                                              corrections of 5 % (2000/2001) and 10 % (1999/2000)
                                                                              for shortcomings in controls: EUR 22 251 827,08
                                                                        b)    Olive oil, fibre plants and seed — ITALY —1210 —
                                                                              Flat-rate correction of 2 % for shortcomings in the
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                              management and effectiveness of controls: EUR
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 October
                                                                              13 048 335,00.
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities
represented by Karen Banks and Knut Simonsson, acting as
Agents.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicant submits that the flat-rate corrections concerning
                                                                        the system of aid for the processing of tomatoes and the flat-
—    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations            rate correction concerning the system of production aid for
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with             olive oil, notified by Commission Decision 2003/536/EC (1) of
     Directive 1999/95/EC (1) of the European Parliament and            22 July 2003 (notified under document number C(2003)
     of the Council of 13 December 1999 concerning the                  2587) are unlawful in so far as they are based on inadequate
     enforcement of provisions in respect of seafarers’ hours           investigation and in breach of the rules of co-operation in
     of work on board ships calling at Community ports or               good faith. According to the applicant, the financial corrections
     by failing to communicate those provisions to the                  should therefore be annulled.
     Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that directive;                                  (1) OJ 2003 L 184 of 23.7.2003, p. 42.
—    order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-31/11: Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in pink, violet, beige and dark grey) (Community trade mark — Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in pink, violet, beige and dark grey — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/20

      Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Fraas v OHIM (Tartan pattern in pink, violet, beige and dark grey)
      (Case T-31/11) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for a figurative Community trade mark representing a tartan pattern in pink, violet, beige and dark grey - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b), Article 75 and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2012/C 331/35)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented: initially by B. Schmidt, then D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 November 2010 (Case R 1284/2010-4) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a tartan pattern in pink, violet, beige and dark grey as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders V. Fraas GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 72, 5.3.2011.


title: Case T-748/15: Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Gauff v OHIM — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (Gauff)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/26

         Action brought on 21 December 2015 — Gauff v OHIM — H.P. Gauff Ingenieure (Gauff)
   (Case T-748/15)
   (2016/C 078/36)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Gauff GmbH & Co. Engineering KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Molnar, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: H.P. Gauff Ingenieure GmbH & Co. KG — JBG (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Gauff’ — Community trade mark No 6 192 521

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2015 in Case R 1350/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, refer the case back to OHIM for further examination of the disputed matters that were, in error, not examined;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 53, 56, 57 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Breach of the right to be heard;

               —

               Defective statement of reasons.


title: Case C-441/03: Action brought on 15 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
13.12.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 304/17
within Directive 78/686/EEC are at a disadvantage in Austria                       the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
because they must use the professional title ‘dentist’ there,                      obligations under Article 18(1) of Directive 79/409/EEC,
while they are in direct competition with ‘specialists in dental,                  or has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of
oral and maxillo-facial surgery’. Furthermore, nationals of                        Directive 92/43/EEC to comply with the directive;
other Member States staying in Austria must be able to rely on
an unambiguous title. Otherwise uncertainty is created which                 —     declare that Article 13(3) of the Natuurbeschermingswet
could harm all patients from the Community. Since a ‘specialist                    (law on the protection of nature) is contrary to Article 6(4)
in dental, oral and maxillo-facial surgery’ is regarded under the                  of Directive 92/43/EEC;
contested Law as a ‘specialist’ and a ‘dentist’ is regarded as a
‘doctor’, it is clear that a specialist falling within Article 19b of
Directive 78/686/EEC does not practice under the same                        —     order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
conditions as a ‘dentist’.
(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             Although the Commission can in principle accept the measures
                                                                             which the Netherlands has proposed in order to remedy the
                                                                             failure found by the Commission in its formal notice of default,
                                                                             the Commission must find that at the present time the
                                                                             Netherlands is still in default since the proposed measures have
                                                                             not yet been adopted or brought into force.
Action brought on 15 October 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                             (1) OJ L 103 of 25 April 1979, p. 1.
                             Netherlands                                     (2) OJ L 206 of 22 July 1992, p. 7.
                           (Case C-441/03)
                           (2003/C 304/25)
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
                                                                             Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 17 October
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                             2003 in the case of Götz Leffler against Berlin Chemie
15 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                                AG, a company incorporated under German law
Communities, represented by M. van Beek, as agent.
                                                                                (Case C-443)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    declare that by failing to bring into force the laws,                                             (2003/C 304/26)
     regulations and administrative provisions in order to:
     —      fulfil the obligations of the Kingdom of the Nether-
            lands under Article 4(1) and (2) of the Council                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of                 European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
            wild birds (79/409/EEC) (1), or in any event by failing          Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 17 Octo-
            to inform the Commission of those provisions, and                ber 2003, received at the Court Registry on 20 October 2003,
                                                                             for a preliminary ruling in the case of Götz Leffler against
                                                                             Berlin Chemie AG, a company incorporated under German
     —      fulfil the obligations of the Kingdom of the Nether-
                                                                             law on the following questions:
            lands under Article 6(1), in conjunction with
            Article 2(1) and Article 1(a), (e) and (i), and
            Articles 6(2), (3) and (4), 7, 11, 14(1) and (2), and            1.    Must Article 8(1) of the Regulation (1) be construed as
            15 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the                        meaning that, in the event of refusal by an addressee to
            conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna                     accept a document on the ground of failure to comply
            and flora, (2) or in any event by failing to inform the                with the language requirement laid down in Article 8(1),
            Commission thereof,                                                    it is possible for the sender to rectify that failure?


title: Case C-210/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Biróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 May 2010 — Márton Urbán v Vám- és Pénzügyörség Észak-alföldi regionális Parancsnoksága

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Biróság (Hungary) lodged on 3 May 2010 — Márton Urbán v Vám- és Pénzügyörség Észak-alföldi regionális Parancsnoksága
   (Case C-210/10)
   2010/C 195/11
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Biróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Márton Urbán

      Defendant: Vám- és Pénzügyörség Észak-alföldi regionális Parancsnoksága

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a system of penalties under which it is mandatory to impose identical financial penalties of up to HUF 100 000 for any breach of the requirements laid down in Articles 13 to 16 of Council Regulation No 3821/85/EEC (1) concerning the use of record sheets for recording equipment in road transport consistent with the requirement of proportionality laid down by Article 19(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85?

               2.

               Is a system of penalties which does not adjust the amount of the penalty according to the gravity of the breach of the rules consistent with the requirement of proportionality?

               3.

               Is a system of penalties which does not allow of any possible defence to a breach of the rules consistent with the requirement of proportionality?

               4.

               Is a system of penalties which makes no distinction according to the personal circumstances of the offenders consistent with the requirement of proportionality?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport; OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8, Special edition in Hungarian, Chapter 7, Volume 1, p. 227.

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (Text with EEA relevance) — Declaration; OJ 1998 L 102, p. 1.


title: Case C-258/03: Action brought on 17 June 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
6.9.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 213/11
Appeal brought on 27 May 2003 by Maja srl against the                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat
judgment delivered on 12 March 2003 by the Second                         (Belgium) — Section d’administration by judgment of that
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Court of 9 May 2003 in the case of Merck, Sharp and
Communities in Case T-254/99 between Maja srl and                                           Dohme BV against État belge
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-245/03)
                        (Case C-238/03 P)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/18)
                          (2003/C 213/17)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’État
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 March 2003                 (Belgium) — Section d’administration (Council of State —
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the               Administrative Section) of 9 May 2003, received at the Court
European Communities in Case T-254/99 between Maja srl                    Registry on 10 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
and Commission of the European Communities was brought                    of Merck, Sharp and Dohme BV against Etat belge on the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                following question:
27 May 2003 by Maja srl, represented by P. Piva, R. Mastroianni
and G. Arendt, lawyers.
                                                                          Must the time-limit of 90 days, which may be extended for a
                                                                          further 90 days, mentioned in the first subparagraph of
                                                                          Article 6(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the
                                                                          prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance               in the scope of national health insurance systems (1), be
      (Second Chamber) of 12 March 2003 and consequently                  regarded as a merely indicative time-limit or as a mandatory
      annul also the measure appealed against at first instance;          time-limit and, if the time-limit is mandatory, what are the
                                                                          consequences of exceeding it as regards the response to be
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings                 given to the application for inclusion of a medicinal product
      before the Court of Justice and at first instance.                  in the list of medicinal products covered by the health
                                                                          insurance system?
                                                                          Must exceeding the time-limit be deemed to constitute
Pleas and main arguments                                                  inclusion in the abovementioned list?
                                                                          (1 ) OJ L 40 of 11.02.1989, p. 8.
The appellant claims that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance is vitiated on the following grounds:
infringement of Regulation No 4028/86 ( 1) and implementing
Regulation No 1116/88 ( 2), as interpreted in the light of the
‘comitology’ decision; defective and illogical grounds; breach
of the principle of the right to a fair hearing and of
legal expectations; manifest inconsistency and contradiction;             Action brought on 17 June 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the French Republic
absence of correspondence between the remedy sought and
the judgment; breach of the obligation to state the reasons on
which the judgment is based, laid down in Article 33 of the                                        (Case C-258/03)
EC Statute of the Court of Justice as referred to in Article 46 of
the Statute itself; breach of the principle of rights of the
defence; breach of essential procedural requirements; breach                                       (2003/C 213/19)
of the general principles of delegated authority.
( 1) OJ 1986 L 376, p. 7.                                                 An action against the French Republic was brought before the
( 2) OJ 1988 L 112, p. 1.                                                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 June
                                                                          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by M. Condou Durande, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/12                  EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.9.2003
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                          24 June 1994, for a sports federation to apply to a professional
the Court should:                                                               sportsman of Russian nationality who is lawfully employed by
                                                                                a Spanish football club, as in the main proceedings, a rule
1.     declare that, by making the grant of a permanent                         which provides that clubs may use in competitions at national
       residence permit to nationals of the other Member States                 level only a limited number of players from countries outside
       referred to in Article 1(a), (c), (f), (h), (i) and (j) of Decree        the European Economic Area?
       No 94-221 of 11 March 1994 laying down the conditions
       of entry to, and residence in France applicable to nationals
       of Member States of the European Communities entitled
       to freedom of movement for persons subject to a
       condition of reciprocity, the French Republic has failed
       to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 EC;
2.     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Högsta Dom-
                                                                                stolen by order of that Court of 10 April 2003 in the case
                                                                                of Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg against Riksåklagaren
The French legislation determining the conditions for issuing
permanent residence permits to nationals of Member States
and members of their family, makes the grant of those permits
                                                                                (Case C-267/03)
subject to a condition of reciprocity, namely the condition that
the applicant be a national of a Member State which issues
residence permits of permanent validity to French nationals
who have exercised their right to freedom of movement. Such                                             (2003/C 213/21)
a condition is manifestly contrary to Article 12 EC, read with
Articles 17, 18(1), 39 and 43 EC.
                                                                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen
                                                                                (Supreme Court) of 10 April 2003, received at the Court
                                                                                Registry on 18 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Audiencia                             of Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg against Riksåklagaren (public
Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo by order                        prosecutor) on the following questions of interpretation of
of that Court of 9 May 2003 in the case of Igor Simutenkov                      Council Directive 83/189/EEC ( 1) (as amended by Directive 88/
against Abogado del Estado, Real Federación Española de                         182/EC (2) and by European Parliament and Council Directive
                     Fútbol and Ministerio Fiscal                               94/10/EC (3) in the light of the amendments to the Lottery Law
                                                                                which entered into force on 1 January 1997:
                            (Case C-265/03)
                                                                                1.    Can the introduction in national law of a prohibition on
                                                                                the use of a product constitute a technical regulation
                            (2003/C 213/20)
                                                                                which must be notified under the regulation?
                                                                                2.    Can the introduction in national law of a prohibition on
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                a service which affects the use of a product constitute a
European Communities by order of the Audiencia Nacional                               technical regulation which must be notified under the
(National High Court) Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo                           regulation?
(Chamber for Contentious Administrative Proceedings) of
9 May 2003, received at the Court Registry on 17 June 2003,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Igor Simutenkov against                 3.    Can the redefinition in national law of a service connected
Abogado del Estado, Real Federación Española de Fútbol and                            with the design of a product constitute a technical
Ministerio Fiscal on the following question:                                          regulation which must be notified under the directive, if
                                                                                the new definition affects the use of the product?
Is it contrary to Article 23 of the Agreement on partnership and
cooperation establishing a partnership between the European                     4.    What is the significance for the obligation to notify of
Communities and their Member States, of one part, and the                             factors such as the replacement of a licence requirement
Russian Federation, of the other part, concluded in Corfu on                          by a prohibition in national law, the greater or lesser


title: Case C-407/06: Action brought on 3 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/27

         Action brought on 3 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-407/06)
   (2006/C 281/43)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), or in any event by having failed to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for the transposition of Directive 2003/105/EC expired on 30 June 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 97.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 1996 in Joined Cases C-47/95, C-48/95, C-49/95, C-50/95, C-60/95, C-81/95, C-92/95 and C-148/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova): Olasagasti and C. Srl and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato (Regulation (EEC) No 3835/90 - Regulation (EEC) No 3587/91 - Regulation (EEC) No 3416/91 - Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal - Article 5 (1) and (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 - Regulation (EEC) No 1750/90 - Regulation (EEC) No 2164/91 - Customs duties - Tariff preferences - Agricultural products - Post-clearance recovery - Binding information - Tuna in olive oil)

text:
22 . 2 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 54/3
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Ministero delle Finanze and Foods Import                                         ( Fifth Chamber )
Sri on the interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC )
No 3796/81 of 29 December 1981 on the common                                               of 12 December 1996
organization of the market in fishery products ( OJ No
L 379, 31 . 12 . 1981 , p. 1 ), and of Article 5 ( 2 ) of Council     in Joined Cases C-47/95 , C-48/95 , C-49/95 , C-50/95 , C
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the                  60/95 , C-81 /95 , C-92/95 and C-148/95 (reference for a
post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties             preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova ): Olasagasti
                                                                      and C. Sri and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
which have not been required of the person liable for
payment on goods entered for a customs procedure                                                 dello Stato (M
involving the obligation to pay such duties ( OJ No L 197,            (Regulation (EEC) No 3835/90 — Regulation (EEC)
3 . 8 . 1979, p. 1 ), the Court composed of: L. Sevon,                No 3587/91 — Regulation (EEC) No 3416/91 — Act of
President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and M.               Accession of Spain and Portugal — Article 5(1 ) and (2) of
Wathelet, Judges; Advocate-General : N. Fennelly,                     Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 — Regulation (EEC)
Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,              No 1750/90 — Regulation (EEC) No 2164/91 —
has given a judgment on 12 December 1996 in which it                  Customs duties — Tariff preferences — Agricultural
rules :
                                                                      products — Post-clearance recovery — Binding
                                                                                information — Tuna in olive oil)
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/05 )
1 . Tariff headings 03.02 A I (b) and 03.02 A II (a) set
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     out in Article 20 of Council Regulation (EEC)
     No 3796/81 of 29 December 1981 on the common
     organization of the market in fishery products are to
     be interpreted as meaning that the list of species                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     whose scientific names are indicated in brackets is                        published in the European Court Reports)
     exhaustive and does not include ling, whose scientific
     name is Molva molva, so that imports of this fish may
     not be exempt from customs duties.                                In Joined Cases C-47/95 , C-48/95 , C-49/95 , C-50/95 , C
                                                                       60/95 , C-81 /95 , C-92/95 and C-148/95 : reference by the
                                                                      Tribunale di Genova ( District Court, Genoa ) for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                       court between Olasagasti & C. Sri ( C-47/95 ), Comarcon
2 . In order to determine whether the error committed by               SNC ( C-48/95 ), Ghezzi Alimentari Sri ( C-49/95 ), Fredo Sri
     the competent authorities 'could not reasonably have              ( C-50/95 ), Cateringros Sri ( C-60/95 ), Intercod Sri ( C-81 /
     been detected by the person liable ' within the meaning           95 ), Nuova Castelli SpA ( C-92/95 ), Igino Mazzola SpA
     of Article 5 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/             ( C-148/95 ) and Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
     79 of 24 July 1979, on the post-clearance recovery of             — on the interpretation of Article 1 ( 1 ) of Commission
     import duties or export duties which have not been                Regulation ( EEC ) No 3416/91 of 25 November 1991 on
     required of the person liable for payment on goods                certain residual duties applicable in 1991 in the
                                                                       framework of the successive reduction in accordance with
     entered for a customs procedure involving the
     obligation to pay such duties, account must be taken,             the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal ( OJ No L 324,
     in particular, of the nature of the error, the                    26 . 11 . 1991 , p. 11 ), and of Article 5 of Council
     professional experience of the trader concerned and               Regulation ( EEC ) No 1679/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
     the degree of care which he exercised. The relevant               post-clearance recovery of imports duties which have not
     factors to be taken into consideration in assessing the           been required of the person liable for payment on goods
     nature of the error include the possibility that the              entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation
      terminology used may have caused confusion, the fact             to pay such duties ( OJ No L 197, 3 . 8 . 1979 , p. 1 — the
      that a change of rule was not apparent and the time               Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of J. C. Moitinho de
      taken by the competent authorities themselves to                 Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O.
      realize that such a change had been made. It is for the           Edward ( Rapporteur), P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges ,
      national court to determine, on the basis of that                 Advocate-General : N. Fennelly, L. Hewlett, Administrator,
      interpretation, whether or not the error which led to             for the Registrar gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 ,
      duties not being collected was detectable by the person           the operative part of which is as follows :
      liable.
                                                                        1 . The suspension of the residual customs duties
                                                                            applicable to imports from Spain into the Community
 (') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .                                          of Ten in accordance with Article 75 (1 ) of the Act of
                                                                            Accession, provided for in Article 1 ( 1 ) of Commission
                                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 3416/91 on certain residual
                                                                            duties applicable in 1991 in the framework of the
                                                                            successive reduction in accordance with the Act of
                                                                            Accession of Spain and Portugal for the agricultual
 ---pagebreak--- No C 54/4               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 2 . 97
     products listed in the Annex to Council Regulation                     Magistrate's Court, Turin ) and from the Pretura
     (EEC) No 383S/90 of 20 December 1990 amending                          Circondariale di Torino itself for a preliminary ruling in
     Regulations (EEC) No 3831 /90, (EEC) No 3832/90                        the criminal proceedings pending before that court against
     and (EEC) No 3833/90 in respect of the system of                       X — on the interpretation of Council Directive 90/270/
     generalized tariff preferences applied to certain                      EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health
     products originating in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador                     requirements for work with display screen equipment
     and Peru, does not apply to imports of preserved tuna                  ( fifth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16
     in olive oil from Spain .                                              ( 1 ) of Directive 89/391 /EEC ) ( OJ No L 156 , 21 . 6 . 1990,
                                                                            p. 14 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of : J. C.
2 . It is for the national court to establish whether the                   Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), President of the
     conditions laid down in Article 5 (2) of Council                       Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M.
      Regulation (EEC) No 1679/79 on the post-clearance                     Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
     recovery of import duties which have not been                          General ; R. Grass , Registrar, gave a judgment on
     required of the person liable for payment on goods                     12 December 1996 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                            follows :
     entered for a customs procedure involving the
      obligation to pay such duties are fulfilled. In order to
     determine whether or not the error committed by the                    1 . Article 9 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of
     authorities could reasonably have been detected by the                       29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health
     person liable it is appropriate to take account, in                          requirements for work with display screen equipment
     particular, of the nature of the error, the professional                     (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of
      experience of the trader concerned and the degree of                        Article 16 (1 ) of Directive 89/391 /EEC) must be
      care exercised by him. The relevant factors to be taken                     interpreted as meaning that the regular eye tests for
      into account include the complexity of the legislation,                     which it provides are to be carried out on all workers
      the terms in which the purpose of the provisions at                         to whom the Directive applies and Article 9 (2) is to
      issue is expressed, recurrence of the error in question                     be interpreted as meaning that workers are entitled to
      in other measures of the Member State concerned and                         an ophthalmological examination in all cases where
     any divergence of views between the Member States as                         the eye and eyesight test carried out pursuant to
      to the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions.                    Article 9 (1 ) shows that this it necessary.
(') OJ No C 199 , 13 . 5 . 1995 ,
     OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 , and                                        2 . On a proper construction of Articles 4 and 5 of
     OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .                                                Directive 90/270/E.EC, the obligations they impose
                                                                                apply to all workstations as defined in Article 2 (b),
                                                                                even if they are not used by workers as defined in
                                                                                Article 2 (c), and workstations must be adapted to
                                                                                comply with all the minimum requirements laid down
                                                                                in the Annex .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                           ( Fifth Chamber )
                      of 12 December 1996
in Joined Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 ( references for a
preliminary ruling from the Procura della Repubblica
presso la Pretura Circondariale di Torino, Italy, and from
the Pretura Circondariale di Torino ): Criminal proceedings                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              against X ( 1 )                                                         ( Sixth Chamber)
(Directive 90/270/EEC on the minimum safety and health                                             of 12 December 1996
requirements for work with display screen equipment —
Definition of worker — Eye and eyesight tests —                             in Case C-142/95 P Associazione Agricoltori della
Definition of workstation for the purposes of Articles 4                    Provincia di Rovigo and Others v. Commission of the
and 5 — Extent of the obligations laid down in Article 4                                  European Communities and Others (')
                                  and 5)                                     (Appeal — Natural or legal persons — Act of direct and
                              ( 97/C 54/06 )                                                    individual concern to them)
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/07 )
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Joined Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 : references to the
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Procura della Repubblica ( Office of the Public Prosecutor )                 In Case C-142/95 P: Associazione Agricoltori della
to     the    Pretura     Circondariale       di   Torino     ( District     Provincia di Rovigo, Associazione Polesana Coltivatori


title: Case C-358/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Markus D.

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 27 June 2013 — Criminal proceedings against Markus D.
   (Case C-358/13)
   2013/C 325/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Party/parties to the main proceedings

   Markus D.

      Question referred

   Is Article 1(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC of 6 November 2001, (1) as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of 31 March 2004, (2) to be interpreted as meaning that substances or combinations of substances within the meaning of that provision which merely modify — that is, do not restore or correct — human physiological functions are to be regarded as medicinal products only if they are of therapeutic benefit or at any rate bring about a modification of bodily functions along positive lines? Consequently, do substances or combinations of substances which are consumed solely for their — intoxication-inducing — psychoactive effects, and in the process also have an effect which at least poses a risk to health, fall under the definition of ‘medicinal product’ contained in the directive?

      (1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2011 L 311, p. 67).

      (2)  Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34).


title: Case C-107/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 February 2010 — Enel Maritsa Iztok 3 v Director of the Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ at the Central Administration of the National Revenue Agency

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 25 February 2010 — Enel Maritsa Iztok 3 v Director of the Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ at the Central Administration of the National Revenue Agency
   (Case C-107/10)
   2010/C 134/30
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Enel Maritsa Iztok 3

      Defendant: Director of the Office ‘Appeals and the Administration of Enforcement’ at the Central Administration of the National Revenue Agency

      Questions referred

   Must Article 18(4) of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment and Article 183(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that in the circumstances of the main proceedings, they permit

               1.

               that as a result of a statutory amendment with the objective of preventing tax evasion, the period for the refund of VAT is extended to the day of issue of a tax assessment notice because within 45 days of submission of the tax return a tax inspection has been commenced in respect of the person concerned, without interest being owed for this period on the amount subject to the refund, if at the same time the following circumstances exist:

                           (a)

                           prior to this amendment, the period of 45 days laid down by statute for the tax refund had expired and interest had started to run on the amount to be refunded regardless of the commencement of the tax inspection,

                           (b)

                           the tax inspection established that the amount of the tax refund declared was correct,

                           (c)

                           the only legal possibility that the taxable person has to shorten this period consists of providing security in the form of money, government bonds or an unconditional and irrevocable bank guarantee for a certain duration in the sum of the amount subject to the refund?

               2.

               that the legislation provides for a period for the refund of VAT with a duration of 45 days from the day of submission of the tax return for this tax and the legal possibility of suspending that period and subsequently also extending it as a result of a tax inspection ordered during this period, when the tax period for calculating this tax comprises one month?

               3.

               that a refund of VAT is made by means of a tax assessment notice, in which the amount subject to a refund is set off against VAT debts assessed by the same notice and against other tax debts and State claims for various tax periods and interest charged on those sums up to the date of issue of the tax assessment notice, if at the tax inspection it has been established that the amount of the tax refund declared was correct and at the same time the following circumstances exist:

                           (a)

                           in the tax inspection procedure, the provision of provisional security in respect of the State’s future claims which might be established in the course of the procedure up to the issue of the tax assessment notice, has not been allowed,

                           (b)

                           national legislation does not provide for setting off against claims of the State as a means of compulsory enforcement or as a measure for providing security,

                           (c)

                           the periods for challenging and voluntarily paying the principal sums and interest which had been offset had not expired, because they had been assessed by means of the same tax assessment notice, and part of them had also been challenged before the court?

               4.

               that the State, if the correctness of the amount of the tax refund declared in the tax return was established, carries out a set-off against tax debts assessed in that notice for periods before the day of submission of the return, and against interest on those debts, [on the day of issue of the tax assessment notice] rather than on the day of the tax return, whereas the State does not owe any interest during the period laid down by statute for the refund of the amount and charges interest on the offset taxes from the day of submission of the return to the issue of the tax assessment notice?