title: Case C-134/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Raytek GmbH, Fluke Europe BV v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Infrared thermal imagers)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Raytek GmbH, Fluke Europe BV v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-134/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Infrared thermal imagers))
   (2015/C 118/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Raytek GmbH, Fluke Europe BV

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Operative part of the judgment

   Examination of the question referred has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Commission Regulation (EU) No 314/2011 of 30 March 2011 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.


title: Case C-487/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 22 September 2011 — Laimonis Treimanis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 22 September 2011 — Laimonis Treimanis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-487/11)
   2011/C 347/23
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Administratīvā rajona tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Laimonis Treimanis

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Question referred

   Does Article 7(1) of Regulation No 918/83 (1) preclude the owner of a private car imported into the European Union from a third country from transferring the car, for use free of charge, to a family member who has actually moved his residence from that third country to the European Union and who formed part of a household with the owner of the car in that third country before the car was imported into the European Union, where the car owner has essentially remained in the third country since the vehicle was imported?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1).


title: Case C-418/08: Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/8

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-418/08) (1)

   2009/C 167/17

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case T-732/16: Action brought on 20 October 2016 — Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission

text:
               5.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 454/31

      Action brought on 20 October 2016 — Valencia Club de Fútbol v Commission
      (Case T-732/16)
      (2016/C 454/54)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Valencia Club de Fútbol, SAD (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: J.R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and A. Guerrero Righetto, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the General Court should:

                  —

                  annul the decision of the European Commission of 4 July 2016 on State aid SA.36387 (2013/C) (ex 2013/CP), implemented by Spain in favour of Valencia Club de Fútbol, S.A.D. (and other football clubs), in particular measures 1 and 4, which affect Valencia FC;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment of three of the four criteria for considering a guarantee to be State aid. It claims in this regard that the Commission was wrong to find that Valencia FC was in a difficult financial position, relying on piecemeal information and without taking into account the specific business model of football clubs, basing itself on the book value of the players rather than on their real market value, and without analysing a feasibility study which at all times was based on realistic assumptions. In the second place, the Commission was wrong to consider that the guarantee covered more than 80 % of the loan and, in the third place, the Commission erred when it evaluated the general interest rate of the loan in relation to the market price.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law, relied on in the alternative, based on the existence of manifest errors by the Commission in the application of the compatibility test in respect of four of six of the criteria in the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines, that is: the return to long-term viability, the avoidance of any excessive distortion of competition by means of compensation, the principle that aid should be limited to the minimum necessary and the principle of ‘one time, last time’.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission made an error in assessing the high value of the compensation offered, specifically, the pledge on shares, as well as additional guarantees provided by the Fundación Valencia to the Instituto Valenciano de Finanzas.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law, alleging an error in the assessment of the amount of the alleged principal loan and interest to be recovered, since the Commission made both an erroneous assumption that the reference rates would remain the same throughout the duration of the measures and an erroneous assumption as to the duration of those measures.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, in that the sums which the Commission has ordered be recovered are disproportionate in comparison with those already paid.

                  6.

                  Sixth plea in law, alleging an error of assessment by the Commission, in that it failed to consider the lender to be a beneficiary and took no account of the fact that the club had a new owner.

                  7.

                  Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of non-discrimination since the Commission assessed in the same way the different situations of the clubs under investigation, although their circumstances were entirely different.

                  8.

                  Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle that reasons on which a measure is based must be given.


title: Case C-86/05: Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/19

         Action brought on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-86/05)
   (2005/C 93/34)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/32/EC (1) of 23 April 2003 introducing detailed specifications as regards the requirements laid down in Council Directive 93/42/EEC with respect to medical devices manufactured utilising tissues of animal origin or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 1 January 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 105 of 26.04.2003, p. 18.


title: Case T-650/11: Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Dimension Data Belgium v Parliament

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/29

         Order of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Dimension Data Belgium v Parliament
   (Case T-650/11) (1)

   2013/C 86/49
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Case C-218/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Vicenza, First Chamber, by order of that court of 25 May 2000, in the case of CISAL di Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas v INAIL

text:
12.8.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Action brought on 31 May 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against Portuguese Republic
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
                                                                                (Case C-220/00)
paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
law before the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose
and to communicate those measures immediately to the                                              (2000/C 233/33)
Commission. That period expired on 13 October 1998 wi-
thout the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue             An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
into national law.                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 May
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, and Miguel
(1) OJ L 328, 28.11.1997, p. 1.                                          Franga, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                         Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
Vicenza, First Chamber, by order of that court of 25 May                 —     declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
2000, in the case of CISAL di Battistello Venanzio &                           within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                           C. Sas v INAIL                                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Council Directive 98/55/EC (1) of 17 July 1998 amending
                          (Case C-218/00)                                      Directive 93/75/EEC (2) concerning minimum require-
                                                                               ments for vessels bound for or leaving Community ports
                                                                               and carrying dangerous or polluting goods, within the
                          (2000/C 233/32)
                                                                               period prescribed by Article 2(1) of that directive, the
                                                                               Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di                           paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, as well as
Vicenza (District Court, Vicenza), First Chamber, of 25 May                    Article 2(1) of the directive; and
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 2 June
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of CISAL di
Battistello Venanzio & C. Sas v INAIL on the following                   —     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
questions:                                                                     the Commission immediately of such measures, the
                                                                               Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                               those provisions;
‘Does a public not-for-profit insurance body, such as the
INAIL, to which is entrusted, on the basis of sound economic
and business practice, the operation as a monopoly of a                  —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
scheme of insurance against risks deriving from accidents at
work and occupational diseases based on a system of compul-
sory registration, which pays out benefits on a partially
automatic basis (which provides insurance cover for employ-              Pleas in law and main arguments
ees, but not for self-employed persons — as from 1998) even
in the event of non-payment of premiums by the employer,
and calculates the premiums on the basis of the risk categories          The mandatory nature of the provisions of the first paragraph
to which the insured work is assigned, constitute an underta-            of Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC
king within the meaning of Article 81 et seq. of the Treaty?             Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary
If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does the fact      to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic
                                                                         law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.
that the abovementioned public entity calls for the payment of           That period, which is laid down in Article 2 of the directive,
premiums even where the person concerned, a self-employed                expired on 31 December 1998 without Portugal having
person (craftsman), is already insured with a private company            brought into force the necessary provisions.
against the same risks in respect of which he would be covered
through affiliation to the abovementioned body constitute an
                                                                         (1) OJ C 1998 L 215, p. 65.
infringement of Articles 86 and 82 EC?’                                  (2) OJ 1993 L 247, p. 19.


title: Case C-234/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2007 — Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), F.M.G. Textiles Srl, formerly Marine Enterprise Projects — Società Unipersonale di Alberto Fiorenzi Srl (Appeal — Community trade mark — Registration of the trade mark BAINBRIDGE — Opposition by the proprietor of earlier national trade marks all having the component Bridge in common — Opposition rejected — Family of trade marks — Proof of use — Concept of defensive trade marks )

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 September 2007 — Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), F.M.G. Textiles Srl, formerly Marine Enterprise Projects — Società Unipersonale di Alberto Fiorenzi Srl
   (Case C-234/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Registration of the trade mark BAINBRIDGE - Opposition by the proprietor of earlier national trade marks all having the component ‘Bridge’ in common - Opposition rejected - Family of trade marks - Proof of use - Concept of ‘defensive trade marks’)
   (2007/C 269/27)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA (represented by: P.L. Roncaglia, A. Torrigiani Malaspina and M. Boletto, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and M. Buffolo, Agents), F.M.G. Textiles Srl, formerly Marine Enterprise Projects — Società Unipersonale di Alberto Fiorenza Srl (represented by: D. Marchi, avvocato)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February 2006 in Case T-194/03 Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA v OHIM dismissing an action brought by the proprietor of the word, figurative and three-dimensional trade marks ‘Bridge’, ‘Old Bridge’, ‘The Bridge Basket’, ‘THE BRIDGE’, ‘The Bridge’, ‘FOOTBRIDGE’, ‘The Bridge Wayfarer’ and ‘OVER THE BRIDGE’, for goods in Classes 18 and 25, for annulment of Decision R 1015/2001-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 17 March 2003 dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division rejecting the opposition to the application for registration of the figurative mark ‘Bainbridge’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               orders Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Case T-445/12: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Koscher + Würtz v OHIM — Kirchner & Wilhelm (KW SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — International registration designating the European Community — Figurative mark KW SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS — Earlier national word mark Ka We — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Appeal procedure — Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal — Proof of genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Application submitted to the Opposition Division — Refusal to register the trade mark applied for without prior examination of the condition of genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Error of law — Power to alter decisions)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/39

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Koscher + Würtz v OHIM — Kirchner & Wilhelm (KW SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS)
      (Case T-445/12) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark KW SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS - Earlier national word mark Ka We - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Appeal procedure - Scope of the examination to be carried out by the Board of Appeal - Proof of genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Application submitted to the Opposition Division - Refusal to register the trade mark applied for without prior examination of the condition of genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Error of law - Power to alter decisions))
      (2014/C 395/47)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Koscher + Würtz GmbH (Spaichingen, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co. (Asperg, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 August 2012 (Case R 1675/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co. and Koscher + Würtz GmbH.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 August 2012 (Case R 1675/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Kirchner & Wilhelm GmbH + Co. and Koscher + Würtz GmbH;

                  2.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  3.

                  Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by Koscher + Würtz in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the General Court;

                  4.

                  Orders Koscher + Würtz to bear half of the costs it has incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

         (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Case F-40/08: Action brought on 18 March 2008 — Carvalhal Garcia v Council

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/33

         Action brought on 18 March 2008 — Carvalhal Garcia v Council
   (Case F-40/08)
   (2008/C 183/65)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Daniela Carvalhal Garcia (Sines, Portugal) (represented by: F. Antas da Cunha, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the Council's decision refusing to grant the education allowance for the applicant's daughter
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the final decision of the Council of the European Union's head of personnel of 16 November 2007 and rule that it must be replaced by a separate decision granting the education allowance for the applicant's daughter with regard to the 2006/2007 school year


title: Case C-222/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/22/EC ( Universal Service Directive) — Electronic communications — Networks and services — Article 12 — Costing of universal service obligations — Social component of universal service — Article 13 — Financing of universal service obligations — Determination of whether an unfair burden exists)

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 October 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-222/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC (‘Universal Service’ Directive) - Electronic communications - Networks and services - Article 12 - Costing of universal service obligations - Social component of universal service - Article 13 - Financing of universal service obligations - Determination of whether an ‘unfair burden’ exists)
   2010/C 328/02
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. van Vliet and A. Nijenhuis, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: T. Materne and M. Jacobs, Agents, assisted by S. Depré, lawyer)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incorrect transposition of Articles 12(1), 13(1) and Annex IV, Part I, of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (‘Universal Service’ Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 51) — Social component of universal service — Designation of undertakings — Provision of particular tariff conditions — Lack of transparency

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that,

                           —

                           first, by failing to take into consideration, in the calculation of the net cost of provision of the social component of universal service, the market benefits, including intangible benefits, accruing to the undertakings responsible, and

                           —

                           second, by making a general finding on the basis of the calculation of the net costs of the erstwhile sole provider of universal service that all undertakings now responsible for the provision of universal service are in fact subject to an unfair burden on account of that provision and by having done so without carrying out a specific assessment both of the net cost which the provision of universal service represents for each operator concerned and of all the characteristics particular to each operator, including the quality of its equipment or its economic and financial situation,

         the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1) and 13(1) of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay two thirds of the costs and orders the European Commission to pay one third of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 29 September 1995 in the case of Generics BV v. Smith Kline & French Laboratories Limited (Case C-316/95)

text:
No C 315/ 12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25 . 11 . 95
State to which it is addressed, places Member States under               IV . Where the infringement referred to in III above consists
an obligation to comply with the time limits prescribed in                      in the submission of samples with a view to the
directives for their transposition. In the case of Directives                   registration of a medicinal product, as referred to in I
93/48/EEC, 93/49/EEC and 93/61 /EEC, the periods                                above, and in consequence thereof a judicial
prescribed expired on 31 December 1993 , in respect of                          prohibition of the kind referred to in III above is
Directive 93/52/EEC, on 1 January 1994 and, in the case of                      imposed for a period which exceeds the maximum
Directive 93/85/EEC, on 15 November 1993 ; in each case ,                       period prescribed by Directives 65/65/EEC ( j ) and
the Italian Republic had failed to adopt the provisions                         75/319/EEC ( 2) for the registration of medicinal
necessary to comply with the Directive in question by the                       products, does the fact that the duration of the
required date .                                                                 prohibition exceeds that maximum render the
                                                                                prohibition incompatible to that extent with
(1)  OJ No  L  250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                    Community law and, if so, does that mean that the
(2)  OJ No  L  250,  7 . 10, 1993 , p . 9 .                                     person on whom the prohibition is imposed can invoke
(■') OJ No  L  175 , 19 . 7 . 1993 , p . 21 .                                   that incompatibility, by virtue of Community law, as
(4)  OJ No  L  250,  7. 10 . 1993 , p . 19 .
(s)  OJ No  L  259 , 18 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                                against the former proprietor of the patent ?
                                                                         (') OJ , English Special Edition 1965— 1966 , p. 20 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 147, p . 13 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 29 September
1995 in the case of Generics BV v. Smith Kline & French
                        Laboratories Limited                             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
                                                                         Social No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court
                           ( Case C-3 16/95 )                            of 21 September 1995 in the case of Jose Ferreiro Alvite v.
                             ( 95/C 315 /23 )                            Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la
                                                                                Seguridad Social
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                ( Case C-320/95 )
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                                                  ( 95/C 315/24 )
29 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 5 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
case of Generics BV v. Smith Kline & French Laboratories                 European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de lo
Limited on the following questions :                                     Social ( Social Court ) No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, of
                                                                         21 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
   I. Does a rule of national law which confers on the                   Registry on 16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
      proprietor of a patent in respect of certain medicinal             case of Jose Ferreiro Alvite v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo
      products the right to oppose, during the currency of               and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social on three
      that patent, the submission by another person of                   questions, which are identical to those referred in Case
      samples of the patented medicinal products ( or of                 C-88/95 ( OJ No C 137 of 3 June 1995 , p. 12 ).
      medicinal products produced in accordance with the
      patented process ) to the authority responsible for the
      registration of medicinal products, have to be regarded
      as a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative
      restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 30            Appeal brought on 16 October 1995 by Stichting
      of the EC Treaty ?                                                 Greenpeace Council ( Greenpeace International ), Domingo
                                                                         Viera González, Pablo Guedes García, José Ignacio Trojaola
 II . If so, is that measure covered by the exception laid               Chávez, Aurora González González, Pedro Melián Castro,
      down in Article 36 of the EC Treaty in respect of                  Caridad Sánchez Artiles, José Juan Melián Melián, Carmen
      restrictions which are justified on the ground of the              Guadalupe Gómez Castro, Clara Donate Hernández,
      protection of industrial property ?                                Balbina Martín Espinóla, José Hernández Morín, Germán
                                                                         Peña Hernández, Antonio Cabrera Expósito, Valentín
III. Where, during the currency of a patent, an                          Hernández Vaquero, Peter Reinhard, Julio González
      infringement of that patent is committed under                     Domínguez, Tagorar Ecologista Alternativo and Comisíon
      national law and the person committing that                        Canaria contra la Contaminácion against the order made on
      infringement or a third person is liable to profit from            9 August 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
      the infringement following the expiry of the patent, or            Instance of the European Communities in Case T-5 85/93
      the proprietor of the patent is liable to suffer some              between Stichting Greenpeace Council ( Greenpeace
      disadvantage as a result of the infringement following             International ) and 18 others and the Commission of the
      the expiry of the patent, does a judicial prohibition              European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of
      imposed in order to prevent that potential harm which                                                Spain
      restrains, for a specified period after the expiry of the
      patent, the placing on the market of products which                                        ( Case C-321 /95 P )
      were protected by the patent during its currency,                                               ( 95/C 315/25 )
      constitute a measure which is prohibited by Article 30
      of the EC Treaty and which is not covered by the                   An appeal against the order made on 9 August 1995 by the
      exception contained in Article 36 of the EC Treaty ?               First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


15.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 144/63
In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that the                       Removal from the register of Case T-30/98 (1)
Commission infringed both Article 81 of the EC Treaty and
Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, since it failed to take into                                    (2002/C 144/122)
account, or incorrectly assessed, the nature and actions of the
applicant undertaking and did not establish that the applicant
participated in the alleged meetings or the alleged collusive                               (Language of the Case: English)
arrangements within the Spanish market or in the agreements
and concerted practices as a whole, which are described in the
contested decision.
                                                                          By order of 16 January 2002 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-30/98:
It is stated in that regard that the applicant is a small family-         Dr. Peter Stott v Conseil de l’Union européenne and Com-
style undertaking which distributes and processes carbonless              mission of the European Communities.
copy paper and that it neither manufactured nor exported to
markets other than the Spanish market during the period of
the infringement. Furthermore, attention is drawn to its                  (1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.1998.
modest economic size and the limited scale of its business as
compared with the other parties alleged to be involved.
As regards the fine imposed, it is submitted that quantification
thereof involved:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-370/00 (1)
—     breach of the principles of proportionality and equal
      treatment;                                                                                (2002/C 144/123)
—     incorrect determination of the period of infringement;                                (Language of the Case: English)
—     failure to take account of the mitigating circumstances
      attendant upon the applicant’s situation.
                                                                          By order of 5 February 2002 the President of the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                            T-370/00: N.V. Master Foods S. A. v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.
        Removal from the register of Case T-113/97 (1)
                        (2002/C 144/121)                                         Removal from the register of Case T-42/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/124)
                   (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 21 February 2002 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          By order of 24 January 2002 the President of the First Chamber
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
T-113/97: Pierre Tomarchio v the Court of Auditors of the
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-42/01:
European Communities.
                                                                          Syndicat des employés, techniciens et cadres de la F.G.T.B. v
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.


title: Case C-304/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2007 — Directmedia Publishing GmbH v 1. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 2. Professor Ulrich Knoop

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 2 July 2007 — Directmedia Publishing GmbH v 1. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 2. Professor Ulrich Knoop
   (Case C-304/07)
   (2007/C 211/40)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Directmedia Publishing GmbH

      Respondents: 1. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 2. Professor Ulrich Knoop
   Question referred
   Can the adoption of data from a database protected in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases (database directive) (1) and their incorporation in a different database constitute an extraction within the meaning of Article 7(2)(a) of that directive even in the case where that adoption follows individual assessments resulting from consultation of the database, or does extraction within the meaning of that provision presuppose the (physical) copying of data?

      (1)  OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20.


title: Case T-221/05: Action brought on 10 June 2005 by Huvis Corporation against the Council of the European Union

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/38

         Action brought on 10 June 2005 by Huvis Corporation against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-221/05)
   (2005/C 193/64)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 June 2005 by Huvis Corporation, established in Seoul (Republic of Korea), represented by J.-F. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and R. Antonini, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 of 10 March 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan insofar as it imposes a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports from Korea of the product concerned manufactured by Huvis Corporation and, to the extent necessary, to declare inapplicable the provisions of the basic Regulation on the basis of which the flawed determinations contained in the Contested Regulation relied on; and

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is a Korean-based company specialising in the production of polyester filament yarn, polyester staple fibre and polyethylene terephthalate. By Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 (1), the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 5,7 % on imports of polyester staple fibre manufactured by the applicant and originating in Korea.
   The applicant submits that the methodology used by the Council to calculate the applicant's dumping margin and, in particular, to calculate the duty drawback adjustment claimed by the applicant, is contrary to Article 2.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, since it did not produce a fair comparison between the applicant's export price and the normal value and it imposed an unreasonable burden of proof on the applicant.
   The methodology used to calculate the applicant's duty drawback adjustment also violated the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations, sound administration and proportionality, since by using this methodology the Council unlawfully increased the applicant's dumping margin. Moreover, the Council violated Article 11(9) of the basic Anti-Dumping Regulation as in the review proceeding at stake it applied a different methodology for the calculation of the duty drawback adjustment than that used in the original investigation. The methodology also violates the principle of non-discrimination as a more favourable methodology was applied by the Council in other similar cases.
   The applicant further submits that the rejection of the credit costs claimed by the applicant in the framework of the review proceeding is contrary to Article 2.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, since it did not produce a fair comparison between the applicant's export price and the normal value and the evidence sought by the Council in support of the credit costs adjustment amounts to an unreasonable burden of proof on the applicant.
   The rejection of the credit costs claimed by the applicant also violated the principle of sound administration since this determination was based on the finding that the applicant did not provide written evidence in support of its claim, whereas the payment terms granted by the applicant were agreed on the basis of customary business rules in force in the Republic of Korea.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 428/2005 of 10 March 2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia, amending Regulation (EC) No 2852/2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of polyester staple fibres originating in the Republic of Korea and terminating the anti-dumping proceeding in respect of such imports originating in Taiwan (OJ L71, p. 1)


title: Case C-167/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Andrea Palomba v Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/30

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Andrea Palomba v Ministero dell’Interno
      (Case C-167/10)
      (2010/C 161/41)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Andrea Palomba

         Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

         Question referred

      Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

                  (a)

                  tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

                  (b)

                  in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

                  (c)

                  provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 September 2004 in Case C-280/02 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste water treatment — Article 5(1) and (2) and Annex II — Failure to identify sensitive areas — Meaning of ‘eutrophication’ — Failure to implement more stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 23 September 2004
   in Case C-280/02 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste water treatment - Article 5(1) and (2) and Annex II - Failure to identify sensitive areas - Meaning of ‘eutrophication’ - Failure to implement more stringent treatment of discharges into sensitive areas)
   (2004/C 284/02)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-280/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Nolin and subsequently G. Valero Jordana and F. Simonetti) against French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues, D. Petrausch and E. Puisais) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 30 July 2002, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by having failed:

                           —

                           to identify the Seine bay, the Seine downstream of its confluence with the Andelle, the coastal waters of the Artois-Picardy basin, Vilaine bay, the Lorient roadstead, Elorn estuary, Douarnenez bay, Concarneau bay, the Gulf of Morbihan, the Vistre downstream from Nîmes and Thau lagoon as sensitive areas with respect to eutrophication, and

                           —

                           to subject to more stringent treatment discharges of urban waste water from the agglomerations — except for Vichy, Aix-en-Provence, Mâcon, Créhange, Saint-Avold, Bailleul, Aurillac, Montauban, Châtillon-sur-Seine and Gray — referred to in the French authorities' letter of 12 December 2000 and from the Montpellier agglomeration, and to subject to more stringent treatment discharges of urban waste water from agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more than 10 000 into the Seine bay, the Seine downstream of its confluence with the Andelle, the coastal waters of the Artois-Picardy basin, Vilaine bay, the Lorient roadstead, Elorn estuary, Douarnenez bay, Concarneau bay, the Gulf of Morbihan, the Vistre downstream from Nîmes and Thau lagoon,

                     the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 5(1) and (2) of, and Annex II to, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.


title: Case T-670/16: Action brought on 16 September 2016 — Digital Rights Ireland v Commission

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/26

         Action brought on 16 September 2016 — Digital Rights Ireland v Commission
   (Case T-670/16)
   (2016/C 410/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Digital Rights Ireland Ltd (Bennettsbridge, Ireland) (represented by: E. McGarr, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Application is admissible;

               —

               declare that the Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1250 of 12 July 2016 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield is a manifest error of assessment by the Commission insofar as it finds an adequate level of protection in the US, for personal data, concordant with Directive 95/46/EC (1);

               —

               declare that the contested decision is null and void and order the annulment of the contested decision relating to the adequacy of the protection provided by the EU-US Privacy Shield;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is not in accordance with Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is not in accordance with Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46, read in the light of Articles 7, 8 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the judgment of the Court of justice of the European Union in Case C—362/14, Schrems.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the ‘privacy principles’ and/or the official (US) ‘representations and commitments’ contained in Annexes I, III to VII of the contested decision do not constitute ‘international commitments’ within the meaning of Article 25(6) of Directive 95/46.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 (‘FISA Amendments Act of 2008’) constitute legislation permitting pubic authorities to have access on a generalised basis to the content of electronic communications and consequently are not concordant with Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the provisions of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 constitute legislation permitting public authorities to have secret access on a generalised basis to the content of electronic communications and consequently are not concordant with Article 47 of the Charter Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that by failing to fully transpose the provisions contained in Directive 95/46 (specifically Article 28(3)), the contested decision, on its face, fails to adequately ensure that the European Union citizens’ rights under EU law are fully provided for where their data is transferred to the United States of America.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is incompatible with Articles 7 and 8 and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that insofar as the contested decision allows, or in the alternative fails and has failed to safeguard against indiscriminate access to electronic communications by foreign law enforcement authorities, it is invalid as a breach of the Rights of Privacy, Data Protection, Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Assembly and Association, as provided for under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and by the general principles of EU Law.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that insofar as the contested decision allows, or in the alternative fails and has failed to safeguard against indiscriminate access to electronic communications by foreign law enforcement authorities, and fails to provide an adequate remedy to EU citizens whose personal data is thus accessed, it denies the individual the right to an Effective Remedy and the right to Good Administration, contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the General Principles of EU Law.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging that by failing to fully transpose the rights contained in Directive 95/46 (specifically at Article 14 and 15), the contested decision, on its face, fails to adequately ensure that the European Union citizens’ rights under EU law are fully provided for where their data is transferred to the United States of America.

      (1)  Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.


title: Case T-470/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Cham v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/34

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Cham v Council
   (Case T-470/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/56)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-164/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Emanuele Ferazzoli v Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/29

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 2 April 2010 — Emanuele Ferazzoli v Ministero dell’Interno
      (Case C-164/10)
      (2010/C 161/38)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Emanuele Ferazzoli

         Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

         Question referred

      Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

                  (a)

                  tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

                  (b)

                  in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

                  (c)

                  provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?


title: Case C-318/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Ischia (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Filomena Califano v Wind SpA

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Ischia (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Filomena Califano v Wind SpA
   (Case C-318/08)
   (2008/C 236/16)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Giudice di Pace di Ischia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Filomena Califano

      Defendant: Wind SpA
   Question referred
   Do the Community rules in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Directive 2002/22/EC (1), Directive 1999/44/EC (2), Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC (3) and Directive 1998/257/EC (4) have direct effect and must they be interpreted as meaning that disputes ‘in the area of electronic communications between end-users and operators concerning non-compliance with the rules on universal service and on the rights of end-users, as laid down in legislation, decisions of the Regulatory Authority, contractual terms and service charters’ (the disputes contemplated by Article 2 of Decision No 173/07/CONS of the Regulatory Authority) must not be made subject to a mandatory attempt at conciliation without which proceedings in that regard may not be brought before the courts, thus taking precedence over the rule laid down in Article 3(1) of Decision No 173/07/CONS?

      (1)  OJ L 108, p. 51.

      (2)  OJ L 171, p. 12.

      (3)  Commission Recommendation.

      (4)  Commission Recommendation.


title: Case C-160/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Republic of Austria Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of 26 March 2002 in the case of Friedrich Skalka against Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft

text:
C 169/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.7.2002
1.2.2.2. Can Austrian hauliers too rely on the fact that the              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Republic of
(excessive) rate for the full itinerary discriminates against them        Austria Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of
in comparison with road users who use only partial itineraries            26 March 2002 in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
of that motorway?                                                          Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
1.3.      If questions 1.1 and 1.2 are answered in the affirmative:                                 (Case C-160/02)
1.3.1. Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-21/                                        (2002/C 169/33)
94 (3) European Parliament v Council of the European Union,
in which it was held that all the effects of Directive 93/89 were
to be preserved until the Council had adopted a new directive,
to be interpreted as meaning that the effects are to be preserved         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
until the Member States have transposed the new directive or,             European Communities by order of the Republic of Austria
as the case may be, the time limit for transposition has expired?         Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of 26 March 2002,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2002, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
1.3.2. If question 1.3.1 is answered in the negative: In the
                                                                          Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft on the
period from 17 June 1999 to 1 July 2000, are the Member
                                                                          following question:
States under an obligation to have regard to the new Directive,
that is to say does it have advance effects which are required
to be observed?                                                           Is Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of the
                                                                          Council on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                          employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
(1) OJ L 279 (1993), p. 32.                                               of their families moving within the Community, as amended
(2) OJ L 187 (1999), p. 42.                                               and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
(3) [1995], ECR I-1827.                                                   2 December 1996 (2), in conjunction with Annex IIa, to be
                                                                          interpreted as meaning that the compensatory supplement
                                                                          provided for under the Bundesgesetz vom 11. Oktober 1978
                                                                          über die Sozialversicherung der in der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
                                                                          selbständig Erwerbstätigen (Federal Law of 11 October 1978
                                                                          on Social Insurance for Persons engaged in Trade and Com-
                                                                          merce — ‘the GSVG’) falls within its scope and therefore
                                                                          constitutes a special non-contributory benefit within the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords                  meaning of Article 4(2a) of the regulation, so that only the
by order of that court dated 13 December 2001, in the                     coordinating provisions laid down by Article 10a of the
case of Gregory Paul Turner against 1) Felix Fareed Ismail                regulation are applicable to a person, such as the claimant,
           Grovit, 2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A.                     who, after 1 June 1992, fulfilled the conditions for the granting
                                                                          of that benefit?
                          (Case C-159/02)
                                                                          (1) OJ L 149 (1971), p. 2.
                          (2002/C 169/32)                                 (2) OJ L 28 (1997), p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
dated 13 December 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 29 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Gregory Paul Turner and 1) Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit,                 Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of
2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A. on the following question:              the European Communities against the French Republic
‘Is it inconsistent with the Convention on Jurisdiction and the                                     (Case C-161/02)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968 (subsequently                                               (2002/C 169/34)
acceded to by the United Kingdom) to grant restraining orders
against defendants who are threatening to commence or
continue legal proceedings in another Convention country
when those defendants are acting in bad faith with the intent             An action against the French Republic was brought before the
and purpose of frustrating or obstructing proceedings properly            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April
before the English courts?’                                               2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda, acting as Agents,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-450/14 P: Appeal brought on 26 September 2014 by Kinonia tis Pliroforias Anikhti stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 16 July 2014 in Case T-59/11 Isotis v Commission

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/29

      Appeal brought on 26 September 2014 by Kinonia tis Pliroforias Anikhti stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis against the judgment delivered by the General Court (First Chamber) on 16 July 2014 in Case T-59/11 Isotis v Commission
      (Case C-450/14 P)
      (2014/C 395/34)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Appellant: Kinonia tis Pliroforias Anikhti stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis (represented by: S. Skliris, dikigoros)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 July 2014 in Case T-59/11 Kinonia tis Pliroforias Anikhti stis Eidikes Anagkes — Isotis v European Commission;

                  —

                  uphold the company’s action in its entirety;

                  —

                  dismiss the Commission’s counterclaim in its entirety;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the appellant’s costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

                  1.

                  Incorrect application of Article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code regarding allocation of the burden of proof

                              —

                              Dismissal of the action does not automatically mean that the factual basis of the counterclaim is proven. The Commission bore the burden of proving the counterclaim.

                  2.

                  Defective statement of reasons as regards the substantive merits of the counterclaim

                              —

                              Lack of reasoning as regards the affirmation of the substantive merits of the Commission’s counterclaim.

                              —

                              Contradictory reasoning by reason of taking into account as the only piece of evidence the audit report which was disputed and constituted the matter to be proven.

                  3.

                  Error of law by reason of failure to apply the international auditing standards

                              —

                              Failure to apply the international auditing standards in breach of national accounting legislation and of the obligation to interpret the contracts at issue in accordance with the common intention of the parties (Article 1156 of the Belgian Civil Code) and with the principle of good faith (third paragraph of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code).

                  4.

                  Incorrect interpretation of the principle of equality of arms

                              —

                              The principle of equality of arms is not the same as the audi alteram partem rule.

                  5.

                  Incorrect interpretation and application of the principle of good faith and breach of the rights of the defence because of the language of the case

                              —

                              The correct interpretation of the principle of good faith requires the contractual provision to be interpreted in accordance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the fundamental principle of EU law regarding observance of the rights of the defence.

                  6.

                  Incorrect interpretation of the terms of the contracts at issue, incorrect application of Greek law and failure to take account of a material submission

                              —

                              Under Article ΙΙ 19.1 of the FP6 contracts, Article II.16 of the e-Ten contracts and Article ΙΙ 20.1 of the CIP contracts, the checks are to cover only the expenditure and receipts which relate to performance of the projects at issue, and not other entries.

                              —

                              Breach of the principle, laid down by case-law, that in Greek accounting and tax law financial years are independent.

                              —

                              Failure to take account, and absence of judicial appraisal, of the applicant’s material submission in paragraphs 61 to 64 of the application.

                  7.

                  Incorrect interpretation of the terms of the contracts at issue, failure to take account of a material submission and distortion of the clear sense of documents

                              —

                              Incorrect interpretation and application of the term ‘overall statement of accounts’, contrary to good faith and Greek law, and of the term ‘receipts’, contrary to the contracts’ express terms.

                              —

                              Failure to take account, and absence of judicial appraisal, of the applicant’s material submission regarding recording the advance payment for the Access e-Gov project in its accounts before the end of the on-the-spot check.

                              —

                              Distortion of the clear sense of Annexes Α3, Α6, Α9, Α11, Α14 and Α17 to the application.

                  8.

                  Lack of reasoning, breach of the law applicable to the contracts at issue and distortion of the clear sense of a document

                              —

                              Lack of reasoning (paragraphs 127, 129) and contradictory reasoning (paragraphs 128, 129).

                              —

                              Breach of the principle of good faith, of the international auditing standards and of Greek accounting legislation (paragraph 127).

                              —

                              Distortion of the clear sense of Annex Β101 which was adduced by the Commission.

                  9.

                  Taking account of a submission which was not put forward and not taking account of a submission which was put forward

                              —

                              Taking account of a submission which the applicant did not put forward (paragraph 165) and absence of judicial appraisal of its submissions to the contrary (paragraphs 88, 89, 91 of the application).


title: Case C-271/05: Order of the President of the Court of  5 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Francesco Rauty v Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali, Soprintendenza B.A.A. di Firenze, Prato e Pistoia; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri; and Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pistoia v Francesco Rauty and Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)) — Francesco Rauty v Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali, Soprintendenza B.A.A. di Firenze, Prato e Pistoia; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri; and Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pistoia v Francesco Rauty and Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri
   (Case C-271/05) (1)

   (2006/C 178/51)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.


title: Case C-292/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2015 — Hörmann Reisen GmbH v Stadt Augsburg, Landkreis Augsburg

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/33

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Südbayern (Germany) lodged on 16 June 2015 — Hörmann Reisen GmbH v Stadt Augsburg, Landkreis Augsburg
   (Case C-292/15)
   (2015/C 294/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Vergabekammer Südbayern

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hörmann Reisen GmbH

      Defendants: Stadt Augsburg, Landkreis Augsburg

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the case of an award procedure under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) in conjunction with Directive 2004/18/EC (2) or Directive 2014/24/EU, (3) in principle are the provisions of those directives alone applicable, with the result that any provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 which derogate from those directives are not to be applied?

               2.

               In the case of an award procedure under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in conjunction with Directive 2004/18/EC or Directive 2014/24/EU, is the permissibility of subcontracting therefore governed exclusively by the rules developed by the Court of Justice in connection with Directive 2004/18/EC and by the provisions of Article 63(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU or can a contracting authority, in derogation from the foregoing, stipulate a percentage rate of self-provision (measured in timetable kilometres), in accordance with Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, even in the case of an award procedure of the kind mentioned above?

               3.

               In the event that Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 is applicable to award procedures under Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 in conjunction with Directive 2004/18/EC or Directive 2014/24/EU, does the determination of the self-provision rate lie within the discretion of the contracting authority, taking into account recital 19 in the preamble to Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, with the result that the requirement by the contracting authority of a self-provision rate of 70 %, measured in timetable kilometres, is justifiable?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).

      (2)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114).

      (3)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65).


title: Case T-67/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Martinair Holland v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European airfreight market — Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) — Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2015 — Martinair Holland v Commission
   (Case T-67/11) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European airfreight market - Agreements and concerted practices in respect of several elements of the pricing of airfreight services (imposition of fuel and security surcharges, refusal to pay commission on surcharges) - Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 048/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Martinair Holland NV (Haarlemmermeer, Netherlands) (represented by: R. Wesseling, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by S. Noë, N. von Lingen and C. Giolito, and subsequently by S. Noë, C. Giolito and A. Dawes, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns the applicant, or, at the very least, for annulment of Article 5(b) of that decision, in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicant, or for the reduction of that fine.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight), in so far as it concerns Martinair Holland NV;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Martinair Holland.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail (Fourth Chamber), Brussels, by judgment of that court of 11 December 1996 in the case of Europièces SA against Wilfried Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding Company SA (Case C-399/96)

text:
No C 40/ 14           1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 2 . 97
the cover capital of the pension less the accrued rights ) or                     Removal from the register of C-290/95 (')
only to the subrogation as such ?                                                                    ( 97/C 40/30 )
(') Offical Journal, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p. 416 .
                                                                        By order of 2 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                        removal from the register of Case C-290/95 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Italian Republic .
                                                                        (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour du Travail
( Fourth Chamber), Brussels, by judgment of that court of
11 December 1996 in the case of Europieces SA against
Wilfried Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding
                             Company SA
                          ( Case C-399/96 )                                       Removal from the register of C-3 19/95 (')
                              97/C 40/28 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/31 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  By order of 23 September 1 996 the President of the Court
European Communities by judgment of the Cour du                         of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Travail (Higher Labour Court ) ( Fourth Chamber ),                      removal from the register of Case C-319/95 : Commission
Brussels, of 11 December 1996 , which was received at the               of the European Communities v. Ireland .
 Court Registry on 17 December 1996 , for a preliminary
 ruling in the case of Europieces SA against Wilfried                   (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 Sanders and Automotive Industries Holding Company SA
 on the following question :
 Does Council Directive 77/ 187/EEC (') of 14 February
 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
 States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in                      Removal from the register of C-4 10/95 (')
 the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts                                          ( 97/C 40/32 )
 of businesses apply where a company in liquidation
 transfers all or part of its assets to another company                  By order of 27 September 1996 the President of the Court
 which then issues orders to a worker which the company                  of Justice of the Fluropean Communities has ordered the
 in liquidation says must be carried out ?                               removal from the register of Case C-410/95 ( reference for
                                                                         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de
 O O J No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                  Nice ): SA Societe des Grands Garages Mediterraneens ,
                                                                         Societe Nissan France v. Societe Nice Ouest Automobiles .
                                                                         (") OJ No C 46 , 17 . 2 . 1996 .
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
 Correctionnel, Charleroi, by judgment of that court of
  21 October 1996 in the case of Ministere Public v. Jean
                                Harpegnies                                         Removal from the register of C- 18/96 (')
                           ( Case C-400/96 )                                                           ( 97/C 40/33 )
                              ( 97/C 40/29 )
                                                                          By order of 8 October 1 996 the President of the Court of
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C- 18/96 : Commission of the
  European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
  Correctionnel ( Criminal Court ), Charleroi , of 21 October            European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
  1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          (■) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
  17 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
  Ministere Public ( Public Prosecutor ) v. Jean Harpegnies on
  the following question :
  Is Belgian legislation, in so far so it still requires approval
  by the Belgian authorities of plant-protection products                          Removal from the register of C-l 34/96 ( 1 )
  marketed in another Member State, in ' breach of the rules
  on the free movement of goods in the Community, as laid                                               ( 97/ C 40/34 )
  down in Article 30 of the EEC Treaty ?
                                                                          By order of 3 October 1996 the President of the Court of
                                                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Case C-432/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León v Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa, Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León v Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa, Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca
   (Case C-432/06)
   (2006/C 326/66)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla y León

      Defendants: Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa, Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca
   Questions referred
   Must Article 87(1) EC be construed as meaning that, by providing for a rate of tax lower than the basic rate set in Spanish State legislation and for a deduction from the amount of tax payable which does not exist in State tax legislation, provisions in the field of taxation adopted by the Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa amending Articles 29(1)(a) and 37 of the Provincial Law on Company Tax, which take effect in the jurisdiction of that infra-State autonomous body, must be regarded as selective and as covered by the definition of State aid enshrined in Article 87(1) EC and, accordingly, must be notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 88(3) EC?


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Højesteret, by a decision of that court of 22 November 1995 in the case of Landbrugsministeriet, EC Direktoratet v. Steff-Houlberg Export I/S, Nowaco A/S, Nowaco Holding A/S and SMC of 31 December 1989 (Case C-366/95)

text:
20 . 1 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 16/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hojesteret, by a           Question 2
decision of that court of 22 November 1995 in the case of
Landbrugsministeriet, EC Direktoratet v. Steff-Houlberg              Do the Community law principles that follow from the
Export I/S, Nowaco A/S, Nowaco Holding A/S and SMC of                case-law of the Court of Justice concerning reimbursement
                      31 December 1989                               of unduly-paid aid, according to which the interests of the
                                                                     Community are to be fully taken into account, preclude an
                        ( Case C-366/95                              exporter undertaking being considered to be in good faith,
                           96/C 16/ 19 )                             and thus not under an obligation to reimburse an amount of
                                                                     aid, if it is taken into consideration that the exporter
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               undertakings did not reserve the right by agreement with the
European Communities by a decision of the Hosteret                   producer to carry out their own checks at the place of
( Supreme Court, Denmark ) of 22 November 1995 , which               manufacture in order to ensure that the products were
was received at the Court Registry on 28 November 1995 ,             manufactured in accordance with the declaration that the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Landbrugsministeriet,        exporter would sign, when account is taken of the fact
EC-Direktoratet (Ministry of Agriculture's EC Department)            that:
v. Steff-Houlberg Export I/S, Nowaco A/S, Nowaco                     — the producer had export approval from the authority
Holding A/S and SMC of 31 December 1989 on the                            that made the payments,
following questions:
                                                                     — the exporter undertakings were trading undertakings
Question 1                                                                and the goods did not pass through them,
A. Do the Community law principles which result from the             — the exporter undertakings knew that the monitoring
     case-law of the Court of Justice concerning demands for              authority exercised day-to-day supervision at the place
                                                                          of manufacture, and
     reimbursement of sums unduly paid as aid, according to
     which the interests of the Community should be fully            — the price of finished products of equivalent type and
     taken into account, preclude national law from taking                description was the same from producers in Denmark
     into consideration, as criteria for excluding demands                and those abroad ?
     for reimbursement of unduly-paid aid:
                                                                     Question 3
     — the good faith of the aid recipients and thus the
          protection of legitimate expectations,                     May a third party, including an aid recipient, rely on
                                                                     possible negligence displayed by the monitoring authority
     — the fact that 5 to 10 years have elapsed since the            with the result that demands for reimbursement of refunds
          payment of the amounts of aid, and hence that it           already paid would be excluded on the basis of an overall
          would be particularly onerous for the aid recipients       assessment of the case ?
          to have to reimburse the aid now,
     — the reason for the undue payment of the aid being an
          exceptional circumstance in the form of serious            Appeal brought on 28 November 1995 by the Commission
          fraud and punishable offences on the part of a third       of the European Communities against the judgment
          party, and                                                 delivered on 28 September 1995 by the Fourth Chamber
                                                                     ( extended composition ) of the Court of First Instance of the
     — the fact that — as the exporter undertakings were             European Communities in Case T-95/94 between the
          aware — the monitoring authority exercised                 Chambre syndicale nationale des entreprises de transport de
          day-to-day supervision at the place of manufacture,        fonds et valeurs ( Sytraval) and the Commission of
          without discovering/affecting the fraud,                   the European Communities, supported by thé French
                                                                                Republic
     — the fact that, over the whole period in which
          payments were made, the authority making the                                     Case C-367/95 P)
          payment was aware that the value of the monitoring                                  96/C 16/20 )
          system depended on the accuracy of the information
          supplied by the undertaking being monitored, but           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 September
          despite that fact omitted to ask to see recipes or the      1 995 by the Fourth Chamber (extended composition ) of the
          producer's accounts relating to the purchase of raw        Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
          materials,                                                 Case T-95/94 between the Chambre syndicale nationale des
                                                                     entreprises de transport de fonds et valeurs ( Sytraval ) and
     where the underlying principle is that the same criteria        the Commission of the European Communities, supported
     apply in connection with demands for reimbursement              by the French Republic, was brought before the Court of
     of purely national amounts of aid ?                             Justice of the European Communities on 28 November
                                                                      1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
 B.  Would the answer be the same if account were taken in           represented by Jean-Louis Dewost, Director-General of its
     national law of the fact that there were no other               Legal Service, and Jean-Paul Kepenne and Michel Nolin, of
     circumstances which should have given the exporter               its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
     undertakings grounds for doubting that the product               service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos GômeZ'de la
     qualified for refunds ?                                          Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.