title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 November 1999 in Case C-179/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles): Belgian State v Fatna Mesbah (EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement — Article 41(1) — Principle of non-discrimination in the field of social security — Scope ratione personae)

text:
C 34/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             5.2.2000
1. Declares that, by not taking the measures necessary to ensure           1. A member of the family of a migrant worker of Moroccan
    that the waste discharged into the watercourse bisecting the San           nationality, where that worker has acquired the nationality of his
    Rocco valley is disposed of without risk to human health or harm           host Member State before the date on which the said member of
    to the environment and by not taking the measures necessary to             his family began to live with him there and applied for a social
    ensure that waste stored in a fly-tip be handed over to a private          security benefit under the legislation of that State, cannot rely on
    or public waste collector or a waste disposal undertaking, Italy           Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement between the Euro-
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of          pean Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco signed
    Article 4 and the first indent of Article 8 of Council Directive           in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the
    75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council                 Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of
    Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991.                                     26 September 1978, as a ground for invoking that worker’s
                                                                               Moroccan nationality for the purposes of obtaining the benefit of
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application.                                 the principle of equal treatment in the field of social security laid
                                                                               down in that provision.
3. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                               Such a member of the family of a Moroccan migrant worker,
                                                                               where that worker also has the nationality of the host Member
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
                                                                               State, could invoke his Moroccan nationality for the purposes of
                                                                               the application of Article 41(1) of the Agreement, solely on the
                                                                               basis of the law of the Member State concerned, which it is for
                                                                               the national court alone, however, to interpret and apply in the
                                                                               proceedings before it.
                                                                           2. The term ‘members of the family’, within the meaning of
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         Article 41(1) of the Agreement, of a Moroccan migrant worker
                                                                               extends to relatives in the ascending line of that worker and of
                                                                               his spouse who live with him in the host Member State.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                      of 11 November 1999                                  (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
in Case C-179/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles): Belgian State v Fatna
                              Mesbah (1)
(EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement — Article 41(1) —
Principle of non-discrimination in the field of social security
                    — Scope ratione personae)                                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                           (2000/C 34/14)                                                             (First Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                 of 14 October 1999
                                                                           in Case C-437/98 P: Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     SA (Infrisa) v Commission of the European Communi-
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                           ties (1)
In Case C-179/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              (Appeal — Action declared manifestly unfounded — Sani-
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour du                         tary policy — Protective Measures — Decision 95/119/EC)
Travail de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels), Belgium, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Belgian State and Fatna Mesbah — on the                                                  (2000/C 34/15)
interpretation of Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement
between the European Economic Community and the
Kingdom of Morocco signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and                                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
approved on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 (OJ 1976 L 264,
p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber acting for the
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragne-
malm, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a            In Case C-437/98 P: Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
judgment on 11 November 1999, in which it has ruled:                       SA (Infrisa), established in Bermeo, Spain, represented by


title: Case C-440/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeitsgericht by order of that court of 27 June 2000 in the case of Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG against Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG

text:
10.2.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 45/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko                            of that kind also contrary to the abovementioned regu-
Protodikio Rodou by judgment of that court of 10 July                          lation, because it constitutes discrimination as regards
2000 in the case of GEHA Naftiliaki E.P.E. and Others                          maritime transport to a particular third country (or
against the Limeniko Tamio Dodekanisou and the Greek                           particular third countries) and therefore a restriction on
                               State                                           maritime transport provided to that country (or those
                                                                               countries)?
                         (Case C-435/00)
                          (2001/C 45/14)
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätt-
                                                                         en (Supreme Administrative Court), by decision of that
                                                                         court of 1 November 2000 in the case of X and Y v
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board)
European Communities by judgment of the the Diikitiko
Protodikio Rodou (Administrative Court of First Instance,
Rhodes) of 10 July 2000, received at the Court Registry on                                       (Case C-436/00)
27 November 2000 for a preliminary ruling in the case of
GEHA Naftiliaki E.P.E. and Others against Limeniko Tamio                                          (2001/C 45/15)
Dodekanisou (Dodecanese Harbour Fund) and the Greek State
on the following questions:                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by a decision of the Regeringsrätten
                                                                         of 1 November 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
(a)  Is Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 to              on 27 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     be interpreted as prohibiting national legislation of a             X and Y v Riksskatteverket on the following question:
     Member State from imposing restrictions in respect of
     the provision of maritime transport services between
     Member States and third countries generally, even if those          In a situation such as that in the present case, do Articles 43,
                                                                         46, 48, 56 and 58 EC preclude the application of a Member
     restrictions are imposed without distinction on all vessels,
                                                                         State’s legislation which like the relevant Swedish legislation
     whether they are used by its own nationals providing
     services or by nationals of other Member States, and on             — has the effect that a capital contribution in the form of a
                                                                         transfer of shares at undervalue is taxed less advantageously if
     all passengers irrespective of nationality, or is it to be
                                                                         the contribution is to a legal person which is domiciled in
     interpreted as prohibiting national legislation of a Mem-
     ber State from introducing restrictions only in respect of          another Member State and in which the transferor directly or
                                                                         indirectly has a holding or to a domestic limited company in
     the provision of services between another Member State
     and a third country, reserving in that way more favourable          which such a legal person has a holding, than would have
     treatment to domestic carriers who provide maritime                 been the case if there had been no such foreign proprietorial
                                                                         interests.
     transport to third countries compared with carriers who
     are nationals of the other Member States?
(b) May a Member State impose different (higher) harbour
     dues for the passengers of vessels which call at, or have
     as their final destination, a port of a third (non-European
     Union) country than the dues which are imposed on                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
     passengers whose destinations are domestic ports or                 gericht by order of that court of 27 June 2000 in the case
     ports in the other Member States of the European Union,             of Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG
     even if those dues in both the above cases are imposed                          against Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG
     on all passengers irrespective of their nationality or that
     of the vessels, or does a provision of that kind constitute
                                                                                (Case C-440/00)
     a restriction on the freedom to transport passengers to
     third countries because the higher dues might have an
     effect on the choice of routes, so that that provision is                                    (2001/C 45/16)
     inconsistent with Article 1 of Regulation No 4055/86?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(c)  If the answer is in the negative, is it possible for the            (Federal Labour Court) of 27 June 2000, received at the Court
     harbour dues which are imposed on passengers whose                  Registry on 29 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
     destinations are ports of third countries to be differen-           the case of Gesamtbetriebsrat der Kühne & Nagel AG & Co.
     tiated still further, according to the third country, on the        KG (Central Works Council of Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG)
     basis of the criterion of the distance of the ports or their        against Kühne & Nagel AG & Co. KG on the following
     geographical location, or is a national legislative provision       questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 45/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      10.2.2001
1.   Is it a requirement of Council Directive 94/45/EC (1) on          (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
     the establishment of a European Works Council or a
     procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Com-
     munity-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes              Pleas in law and main arguments
     of informing and consulting employees, in particular
     Articles 4 and 11 thereof, that undertakings which belong         The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
     to a group of undertakings whose controlling undertaking          of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
     is resident outside the the Community are obliged to              obliges Member States to transpose the provisions of directives
     provide the undertaking which is regarded as the central          into national law so as to render them fully effective upon the
     management under the second paragraph of Article 4(2)             expiry of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit
     and Article 4(3) of the directive with information on the         prescribed in Article 32 of the directive expired on 24 October
     average total number of employees and their distribution          1998, but Germany has not to date enacted any measures in
     across the Member States, the establishments of the               the field covered by the directive.
     undertaking and the undertakings controlled by it, and on
     the structure of the undertaking and of the undertakings
     controlled by it?                                                 (1) OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 31.
2.   If the Court of Justice answers the first question in the
     affirmative:
     Does the obligation to provide information also
     encompass the names and addresses of the employee
     representation which is to participate, on behalf of              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
     the employees of the undertaking or the undertakings              of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
     controlled by it, in the setting up of a special negotiating      Administrative Court, by order of that court of 9 No-
     body in accordance with Article 5 of the directive or in          vember 2000, in the case of The Queen on the application
     the establishment of a European Works Council?                    of Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment
                                                                       Agency and 2) Secretary of State for Environment,
(1) OJ No L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                     Transport and the Regions, Interveners: 1) Corus (UK)
                                                                                Ltd. and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd
                                                                                (Case C-444/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/18)
Action brought on 1 December 2000 by the Commission
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                         lic of Germany
                                                                       Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Adminis-
                                                                       trative Court, of 9 November 2000, which was received at the
                        (Case C-443/00)                                Court Registry on 30 November 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       in the case of The Queen on the application of Mayer Parry
                         (2001/C 45/17)                                Recycling Ltd against 1) Environment Agency and 2) Secretary
                                                                       of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions, Inter-
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                  veners: 1) Corus (UK) Ltd and 2) Allied Steel and Wire Ltd, on
brought before the Court of Justice on 1 December 2000 by              the following questions:
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Ulrich Wölker, Legal Adviser, and Xavier Lewis, of the Legal        Where an undertaking deals with packaging materials includ-
Service of the Commission of the European Communities,                 ing ferrous metals, which (when received by that undertaking)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of             constitute ‘waste’ within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the                  Directive 75/442/EEC (1) on waste, as amended by Council
Commission of the European Communities, Wagner Centre                  Directive 91/156/EEC (2) and Commission Decision
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                      96/350/EC (3), by means of sorting, cleaning, cutting crushing,
                                                                       separating and/or baling so as to render those materials
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            suitable for use as a feedstock in a furnace in order to produce
                                                                       ingots, sheets or coils of steel:
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
     prescribed time-limit the measures necessary in order             1.    Have those materials been recycled, and do they cease to
     to comply with Directive 95/46/EC of the European                       be waste, for the purposes of Council Directive 75/442,
     Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on                     when they have been:
     the protection of individuals with regard to the processing
     of personal data and on the free movement of such                       a.    rendered suitable for use as a feedstock, or
     data (1), the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
     comply with its obligations under the EC Treaty and                     b.     used by a steelmaker so as to produce ingots, sheets
     under Article 32 of that directive;                                           or coils of steel?


title: Case C-433/07: Order of the President of the Court of 24 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-433/07) (1)

   (2008/C 79/45)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-219/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Brain Products GmbH v BioSemi VOF, Antonius Pieter Kuiper, Robert Jan Gerard Honsbeek, Alexander Coenraad Metting van Rijn (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Medical devices — Directive 93/42/EEC — Scope — Interpretation of the concept of ‘medical device’ — Product marketed for non-medical use — Investigation of a physiological process — Free movement of goods)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/7

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Brain Products GmbH v BioSemi VOF, Antonius Pieter Kuiper, Robert Jan Gerard Honsbeek, Alexander Coenraad Metting van Rijn
   (Case C-219/11) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Medical devices - Directive 93/42/EEC - Scope - Interpretation of the concept of ‘medical device’ - Product marketed for non-medical use - Investigation of a physiological process - Free movement of goods)
   2013/C 26/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Brain Products GmbH

      Defendants: BioSemi VOF, Antonius Pieter Kuiper, Robert Jan Gerard Honsbeek, Alexander Coenraad Metting van Rijn

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of the third indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices (OJ 1993 L 169, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 5 September 2007 (OJ 2007 L 247, p. 21) — Interpretation of the term ‘medical device’ — Application of the directive to an article which is intended for purposes of investigation of a physiological process and which is marketed for a non-medical purpose

      Operative part of the judgment

   The third indent of Article 1(2)(a) of Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, as amended by Directive 2007/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 September 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘medical device’ covers an object conceived by its manufacturer to be used for human beings for the purpose of investigation of a physiological process only if it is intended for a medical purpose.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case C-78/06: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/49/EC — Assessment and management of environmental noise — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/19

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-78/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/49/EC - Assessment and management of environmental noise - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 331/33)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise (OJ 2002 L 189, p. 12)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take, within the period prescribed, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case C-486/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) v Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. arl (Common organisation of the markets — Cereals — Maize — Determination of price — Reductions applicable)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) v Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. arl
   (Case C-486/07) (1)

   (Common organisation of the markets - Cereals - Maize - Determination of price - Reductions applicable)
   (2009/C 32/14)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte suprema di cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agenzia per le Erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA)

      Defendant: Consorzio Agrario di Ravenna Soc. Coop. arl
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) — Interpretation of Articles 4 and 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (OJ 1992 L 181, p. 21), Article 4a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 18), and of Article 13 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies (OJ 1993 L 191, p. 76) — Reductions applicable for higher levels of humidity than that of the standard quality — Applicability to sales of maize
   Operative part of the judgment
   The combined provisions of Article 13(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2131/93 of 28 July 1993 laying down the procedure and conditions for the sale of cereals held by intervention agencies and Article 4a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 689/92 of 19 March 1992 fixing the procedure and conditions for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2486/92 of 27 August 1992, are to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a sale by tender of maize held by the international intervention agencies, the price reductions in relation to the moisture content laid down for durum wheat in Table II of Annex II to Regulation No 689/92, as amended by Regulation No 2486/92, do not apply.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 20 February 1997 in Case C-114/94: Intelligente systemen, Database toepassingen, Elektronische diensten BV (IDE) v. Commission of the European Communities (Arbitration clause - Software development contract - Claim for payment of balance outstanding and for damages - Counterclaim for repayment of amounts paid on account)

text:
5 . 4 . 97           P EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 108/3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ( Second Chamber)                                                       (Fifth Chamber )
                      of 20 February 1997                                                    of 20 February 1997
in Case C-114/94: Intelligente systemen, Database toepas             in Joined Cases C-88/95 , C-102/95 and C-103/95
singen, Elektronische diensten BV (IDE ) v. Commission of             ( references for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
                 the European Communities (')                         Social de Santiago de Compostela): Bernardina Martínez
                                                                      Losada, Manuel Fernández Balado, José Paredes v. Institu
(Arbitration clause — Software development contract —                 to Nacional de Empleo (Inem ) and Instituto Nacional de
Claim for payment of balance outstanding and for                                        la Seguridad Social (INSS ) (')
damages — Counterclaim for repayment of amounts paid
                             on account)                              (Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty — Articles 4, 48 and
                                                                      67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Unemployment
                           ( 97/C 108/04 )                                        benefit for persons over 52 years of age)
                                                                                ( 97/C 108/05 )
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-l 14/94: Intelligente systemen, Database toepas
singen, Elektronische diensten BV ( IDE ), a company
incorporated under Netherlands law, established in                    In Joined Cases C-88/95 , C-102/95 and C-103/95 :
Maassluis ( Netherlands ), represented by J. A. M. van de             references to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty
Sande, of the Rotterdam Bar, 102 Wijnhaven, Rotterdam                 from the Juzgado de lo Social ( Social Court), Santiago de
v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents:                   Compostela ( Spain ), for a preliminary ruling in the
A. C. Jessen and M. van der Woude ) — application for                 proceedings pending before that court between Bernardina
payment of the balance of the maximum contribution                    Martinez Losada, Manuel Fernandez Balado, Jose Paredes
provided for in the contract concluded between the parties            and Institute Nacional de Empleo ( Inem ) and Instituto
and for damages and counterclaim for repayment of the                 Nacional de la Seguridad Social ( INSS ) — on the
amounts paid on account by the Commission — the Court                 interpretation of Articles 4, 48 and 67 of Council
( Second Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President             Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur ),            application of social security schemes to employed
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl ,                     persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               families moving within the Community, as amended and
judgment on 20 February 1997, in which it:                            updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of
                                                                      2 June 1983 ( OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ), as
                                                                      amended by Council Regulation ( EEC) No 1248/92 of
                                                                      30 April 1992 ( OJ No L 136 , 19 . 5 . 1992, p. 7 ), and of
 1 . dismisses the action brought by Intelligente systemen,           Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth
      Database toepassingen, Elektronische diensten BV                Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
      (IDE);                                                          President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges;
                                                                       C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein , Deputy
                                                                       Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
2 . orders IDE to repay to the Commission ECU
                                                                       20 Febuary 1997, in which it has ruled:
      533 456, together with interest at 7,97% per annum
      as from 29 July 1994;
                                                                       1 . An allowance such as that provided for by the Spanish
 3. orders IDE to pay the costs.                                            General L"w °» Social Security for unemployed
                                                                            persons of more than 52 years of age constitutes an
                                                                            unemployment benefit within the meaning of Article 4
     OJ No C 146, 28 . 5 . 1994.                                            (I ) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
                                                                            14 June 1971 on the application of social security
                                                                            schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                                                                            persons and to members of their families moving
                             ___                                            within the Community, as amended and updated by


title: Case C-62/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 13 February 2009 — Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry v Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 13 February 2009 — Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry v Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
   (Case C-62/09)
   2009/C 90/24
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry

      Defendant: Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

      Questions referred

   Does Article 94(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC (1) preclude a public body forming part of a national public health service, in order to seek to reduce its overall expenditure on medicines, from implementing a scheme which offers financial incentives to medical practices (which may in turn provide a financial benefit to the prescribing doctor) to prescribe a specific named medicine supported by the incentive scheme that is either:

               (a)

               a different prescription medicine to the medicine previously prescribed by thedoctor to the patient; or

               (b)

               a different prescription medicine to that which otherwise might have beenprescribed to the patient but for the incentive scheme,

         where such a different prescription medicine is from the same therapeutic class of medicines used for treatment of the patient's particular condition.

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


title: Case T-605/13: Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Alma — The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/32

         Action brought on 21 November 2013 — Alma — The Soul of Italian Wine v OHIM — Miguel Torres (SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE)
   (Case T-605/13)
   2014/C 24/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alma — The Soul of Italian Wine LLLP (Bal Harbor, United States) (represented by: F. Terrano, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Torres, SA (Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 18/2013-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘SOTTO IL SOLE ITALIANO SOTTO il SOLE’ — Community trade mark application No 9 784 539

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registrations Nos 462 523, 6 373 971 and Spanish trade mark registrations Nos 152 231, 715 524, 2 796 505

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and rejected the CTM application in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case C-9/07: Action brought on 16 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/6

         Action brought on 16 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-9/07)
   (2007/C 69/11)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and G. Rozet, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (1) or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               order the French Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2002/74/EC expired on 8 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 270, 2002, p. 10.


title: Case C-468/09 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/02 to T-88/02 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/7

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2009 by Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/02 to T-88/02 Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-468/09 P)
   2010/C 37/10
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Goberierno Vasco, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask), Commission of the European Communities and Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the appeal to be admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               grant the form of order sought at first instance, that is the annulment Article 3 of the contested decision;

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance and, order it to examine the evidence rejected;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal and the intervener, the Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that the conclusion of the preliminary examination procedure with respect to the tax measure at issue, prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1), required the existence of an express decision by Commission decision to that effect (addressed to the Member State).

               2.

               The CFI misinterpreted the decision of 28 November 2000 by holding that that decision put an end to the preliminary examination procedure of the tax measure at issue which arose out of a complaint lodged in April 1994. The CFI erred in law by not holding that the re-examination of the tax measure at issue in 2000 was to be carried out within the framework of the procedure laid down for existing aid.

               3.

               The CFI erred in law by failing to comply with the procedural rules concerning the burden of proof and the assessment of evidence, in particular with respect to the documentary evidence consisting of the decision of 28 November 2000 (its credibility and probative force). The CFI also infringed the right to a fair trial.

               4.

               The CFI erred in law by infringing the procedural rules relating to the assessment of evidence and the burden of proof with respect to the objective, relevant, corroborative and conclusive evidence in the case-file and which proves that, prior to the decision of 28 November 2000, the Commission had conducted a preliminary examination of the tax measure at issue and had closed that examination. The CFI erred in law by not holding that the re-examination of the tax measure at issue in 2000 had to be conducted within the framework of the procedure laid down for existing aid.

               5.

               The CFI erred in law by confirming the finding that the tax measure at issue, adopted in 1993, constituted operating aid, by applying the definition of investment aid laid down in the directives on regional aid of 1998. The CFI breached the principle of legal certainty and, in particular, the principle of non-retroactivity.

               6.

               The CFI erred in law as regards the concept of ‘relevant information’ for the preliminary examination of a tax system in the field of State aid which led the CFI to hold that the duration of the preliminary procedure was not unreasonable.

               7.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that a period of 79 months, in the instant case, is not unreasonable period of time for a preliminary examination procedure with respect to the tax measure at issue, and by holding, that therefore there was no infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 as regards the principle of legal certainty.

               8.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that a period of 79 months, in the instant case, is not unreasonable for a preliminary examination procedure for the tax measure at issue and by holding, therefore, that there was no infringement of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 as regards the principle of sound administration.

               9.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that, in the instant case, there are no exceptional circumstances which justify the legitimate expectation that the tax measure at issue is lawful, which could preclude the recovery of the aid, in accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999. The decision was also misinterpreted.

               10.

               The CFI erred in law by holding that, in this case, there was no infringement of the principle of equal treatment which could preclude recovery of the aid in accordance with Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999.

               11.

               The CFI erred in law by failing to comply with the procedural rules regarding the assessment of evidence and by deciding not to require disclosure of the evidence requested by the applicant with respect to certain Commission documents that, in the light of the arguments used by the CFI in order to dismiss the applicant's application, are essential to the defence of its interests. The CFI also infringed the right to a fair trial, the principle of equality of arms and the rights of defence.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-416/05: Order of the President of the Court of 14 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 July 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-416/05) (1)

   (2006/C 281/44)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Case T-500/12: Action brought on 15 November 2012 — Ryanair v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/60

         Action brought on 15 November 2012 — Ryanair v Commission
   (Case T-500/12)
   2013/C 26/120
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: B. Kennelly, Barrister, E. Vahida and I. Metaxas-Maragkidis, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Article 1 of the Commission’s Decision dated 25 July 2012 in State aid case SA.29064 (20011/C ex 2011/NN) finding that the differential rates applied in the Irish air travel tax (‘ATT’) between 30 March 2009 and 1 March 2011 constituted unlawful State aid contrary to Article 107(1) TFEU;

               —

               Annul Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the same Decision; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in law in finding that the EUR 10 rate in the ATT was the ‘normal’ or legitimate ‘standard’ rate, despite the fact that this higher rate was at all material times unlawful as a matter of EU law.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in relation to assessing the advantage granted under the ATT, by finding that Ryanair and Aer Arann were in the same position as regards the economic and competitive advantage granted by the ATT, disregarding entirely the ATT’s particular competitive effects as between Ryanair and Aer Lingus, erring in its assessment of the alleged advantage gained by Ryanair vis-à-vis other, non-Irish, carriers and ignoring the damage inflicted on Ryanair through the ATT’s advantageous effects for Ryanair’s competitors.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in relation to the recovery decision, by depriving Ireland of the required discretion to assess the extent to which the State aid distorted competition and thus restore the previous situation, by failing to analyse the relevance of the affected airlines’ ability to pass on the ATT to their customers and by disregarding the competitive distortions that will arise as a result of the recovery decision’s combination with the alleged ‘beneficiary’ airlines’ right to restitution under EU and Irish law.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Commission failed to give Ryanair notice of its recovery decision as required by Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999 (1) and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Commission is in breach of its obligation to state reasons, by failing to justify why, in departure from well-established case-law, the EUR 10 rate could be both unlawful under EU law and at the same time the ‘normal’ and ‘legitimate’ benchmark, and by failing to analyse the economic and competitive effects of the measure in question.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of 20 May 2003 in Case C-108/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords): Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma, Salumificio S. Rita SpA v Asda Stores Ltd, Hygrade Foods Ltd (Protected designations of origin — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 — "Prosciutto di Parma" — Specification — Requirement for ham to be sliced and packaged in the region of production — Articles 29 EC and 30 EC — Justification — Whether requirement may be relied on against third parties — Legal certainty — Publicity)

text:
C 171/6                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             19.7.2003
of the laws of the Member States relating to personal protective             Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma, Salumificio S. Rita SpA and
equipment (OJ 1989 L 399, p. 18), and bears the EC marking,                  Asda Stores Ltd, Hygrade Foods Ltd, on the interpretation of
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
obligations under Articles 1 and 4 of that directive, the Court              protection of geographical indications and designations of
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the                  origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208,
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur)                p. 1), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of
and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                       accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland
General; H.-A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,             and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the
has given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it:                            Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994
                                                                             C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), and of Commission
                                                                             Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
1.    Declares that by subjecting, by means of the legislation of            registration of geographical indications and designations of
      certain Länder, personal protection equipment for firefighters to      origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
      additional requirements despite the fact that it complies              Regulation No 2081/92 (OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1), the Court,
      with the requirements of Council Directive 89/686/EEC of               composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puisso-
      21 December 1989 on the approximation of the laws of the               chet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C. W. A. Timmermans
      Member States relating to personal protective equipment and            (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
      bears the EC marking, the Federal Republic of Germany has              D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric,
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 4 of that        S. von Bahr and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber,
      directive;                                                             Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 May 2003, in which
2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;               it has ruled:
3.    Orders the French Republic to pay its own costs.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                  1.    Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on
                                                                                the protection of geographical indications and designations of
                                                                                origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs, as amended by
                                                                                the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic
                                                                                of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
                                                                                and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
                                                                                Union is founded, must be interpreted as not precluding the use
                                                                                of a protected designation of origin from being subject to the
                                                                                condition that operations such as the slicing and packaging of
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            the product take place in the region of production, where such a
                                                                                condition is laid down in the specification.
                            of 20 May 2003
in Case C-108/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    2.    Where the use of the protected designation of origin ‘Prosciutto
the House of Lords): Consorzio del Prosciutto di Parma,                            di Parma’ for ham marketed in slices is made subject to the
Salumificio S. Rita SpA v Asda Stores Ltd, Hygrade Foods                           condition that slicing and packaging operations be carried out
                                  Ltd ( 1)                                         in the region of production, this constitutes a measure having
                                                                                equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports within
                                                                                the meaning of Article 29 EC, but may be regarded as justified,
(Protected designations of origin — Regulation (EEC)                               and hence compatible with that provision.
No 2081/92 — Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 — ‘Prosciutto
di Parma’ — Specification — Requirement for ham to be
sliced and packaged in the region of production — Articles 29
EC and 30 EC — Justification — Whether requirement may                       3.    However, the condition in question cannot be relied on against
be relied on against third parties — Legal certainty —                             economic operators, as it was not brought to their attention by
                                Publicity)                                         adequate publicity in Community legislation.
                            (2003/C 171/07)
                    (Language of the case: English)                          (1 ) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
In Case C-108/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the House of Lords (United Kingdom) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between


title: Case C-30/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofie-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Global Trans Lodzhistik OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofie-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 January 2013 — Global Trans Lodzhistik OOD v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna
   (Case C-30/13)
   2013/C 108/33
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofie-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Global Trans Lodzhistik OOD

      Defendant: Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Stolichna

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 243(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, if it is interpreted in conjunction with Article 245 of that regulation and the principles of the right of defence and res judicata, permit a national provision like Article 220 and Article 211a of the Zakon za mitnitsite (Law on customs) under which more than one decision of a customs authority, which fixes an additional customs debt with a view to its subsequent recovery, may be challenged, even where, under the circumstances of the main proceedings, a final decision within the meaning of Article 181a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 could be adopted in order to fix that customs debt?

               2.

               Is Article 243(2) of Regulation No 2913/92 on the right of appeal to be interpreted to the effect that it does not provide that a final decision within the meaning of Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93 must first be the subject of an administrative review in order for judicial proceedings to be permitted?

               3.

               Is Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93 to be interpreted, under the circumstances of the main proceedings, to the effect that, if the procedure laid down in that provision in relation to the right to be heard and the right to raise objections was not observed, the decision of the customs authority adopted in contravention of those rules does not constitute a final decision within the meaning of that provision, but is merely part of the procedure for the adoption of the final decision? Failing that, is that provision to be interpreted, under the circumstances of the main proceedings, to the effect that the decision adopted with the abovementioned procedural defects is directly subject to judicial review and the court must give final judgment on the action brought against it?

               4.

               Is Article 181a(2) of Regulation No 2454/93 to be interpreted, under the circumstances of the main proceedings and having regard to the principle of legality, to the effect that, if the procedure laid down in that provision in relation to the right to be heard and the right to raise objections was not observed, the decision of the customs authority adopted in contravention of those rules is null and void on account of a material procedural defect which is comparable to an infringement of an essential procedural requirement, non-compliance with which results in the nullity of the act irrespective of the actual consequences of the infringement, with the result that the court is required to rule on an action brought against that act, without being able to consider referring the case back to the administrative authority for the proper termination of the procedure?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1.


title: Case F-86/11: Action brought on 8 September 2011 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/42

         Action brought on 8 September 2011 — ZZ v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-86/11)
   2011/C 340/89
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision refusing to recognise that the applicant’s invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of 10 September 2010 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions on the ground that, in confirming the conclusions of the Invalidity Committee, it refused to recognise that the applicant’s invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annulment of the decision of 20 May 2011, notified on 1 June 2011, of the Committee of the Regions rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               Order the Committee of the Regions to pay an allowance of EUR 10 000 as compensation for non-material damage;

               —

               Order the Committee of the Regions to reimburse all the applicant’s expenses connected with the invalidity procedure from its commencement, including those connected with the complaint;

               —

               Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.


title: Case C-678/11: Action brought on 22 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               10.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/20

         Action brought on 22 December 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-678/11)
   2012/C 73/35
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Roels and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to meet its obligations under Article 56 TFEU (formerly Article 49 TEC) and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement by adopting and maintaining in force Article 46(c) of the consolidated version of the Ley de Regulación de los Planes y Fondos de Pensiones, Article 86 of Real Decreto Legislativo 6/2004 of 29 October 2004 approving the consolidated version of the Ley de ordenación y supervisión de los seguros privados, Article 10 of Real Decreto Legislativo 5/2004 approving the consolidated version of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la renta de los no residentes, and Article 47 of Ley 58/2003 (General Tributaria) of 17 December 2003, pursuant to which foreign pension funds based in other Member States and which offer occupational pension schemes in Spain, and insurance companies which operate in Spain under the freedom to provide services, inter alia, are required to designate a tax representative who is resident in Spain.

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Spanish tax law provisions referred to above require tax payers who are not resident in Spain to designate a tax representative who is resident in Spain. In particular, that requirement is imposed on foreign pension funds based in other Member States and which offer occupational pension schemes in Spain, and insurance bodies which operate in Spain under the freedom to provide services.

               2.

               The Commission considers that the requirement to designate a tax representative resident in Spain in the cases referred to constitutes an obstacle to the free movement of services in so far as it imposes an additional burden on the entities and physical persons mentioned, who are required to solicit the services of a representative. In addition, that requirement constitutes an obstacle to the free movement of services for persons resident, and undertakings established, in a Member State other than Spain wishing to provide tax representation services to entities or physical persons operating in Spain.

               3.

               The provisions in question infringe Article 56 TFEU (formerly Article 49 TEC) and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement.


title: Case T-391/08: Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — Ellinika Nafpigeia v Commission (State aid — Shipbuilding — Aid granted by the Greek authorities to a shipyard — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Misuse of aid)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/12

         Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — Ellinika Nafpigeia v Commission
   (Case T-391/08) (1)

   (State aid - Shipbuilding - Aid granted by the Greek authorities to a shipyard - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Misuse of aid)
   2012/C 126/24
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Ellinika Nafpigeia AE (Skaramagka, Greece) (represented by: I. Drosos, K. Loukopoulos, A. Chiotellis, C. Panagoulea, P. Tzioumas, A. Balla, V. Voutsakis and X. Gkousta, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes and M. Konstantinidis, agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Article 1(2), Article 2, 3, 5 and 6, Article 8(2) and Articles 9, 11 to 16, 18 and 19 of Commission Decision 2009/610/EC of 2 July 2008 concerning State aid C 16/2004 (formerly NN 29/2004, CP 71/2002 and CP 133/2005) granted by Greece to Hellenic Shipyards SA (OJ 2009 L 225, p. 104).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ellinika Nafpigeia AE to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case T-77/13: Action brought on 31 January 2013 — Laboratoires Polive/OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (DODIE)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/31

         Action brought on 31 January 2013 — Laboratoires Polive/OHIM — Arbora & Ausonia (DODIE)
   (Case T-77/13)
   2013/C 108/78
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratoires Polive (Levallois Perret, France) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arbora & Ausonia, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision rendered by the second Board of Appeal which has annulled the decision from the Opposition Division,

               —

               Reject the opposition in its entirety, and

               —

               Order the OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DODIE’, for goods in classes 3, 5 and 10 — Community trade mark application No 5 665 104

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade marks and national trade marks of figurative and word marks containing the word element ‘DODIS’, ‘DODIES’ or ‘DODOT’ for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 35, and 44

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal partly and annulled the contested decision with respect to certain goods of classes 3, 5 and 10

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-365/14: Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/17

         Order of the President of the Court of 12 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-365/14) (1)

   (2014/C 431/30)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case T-343/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 3 May 2007 — Tsarnavas v Commission (Officials — Staff report — Invalidity — Action for annulment — Interest to bring proceedings — Action for damages — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/21

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 3 May 2007 — Tsarnavas v Commission
   (Case T-343/04) (1)

   (Officials - Staff report - Invalidity - Action for annulment - Interest to bring proceedings - Action for damages - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 140/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Vassilios Tsarnavas (Volos, Greece) (represented by N. Lhoëst and B. d'Orléans, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   First, application for the annulment of the decision of the appeal assessor of 4 August 2003 establishing the definitive staff report in relation to the applicant for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999 and, secondly, action for damages in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant by reason of the late drawing up of his staff report and the moral harassment of which he was the victim.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the decision of the appeal assessor of 4 August 2003 establishing the definitive staff report in relation to the applicant for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999 is annulled;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and one-half of the costs incurred by the applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004


title: Case T-418/13: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2015  — Richter + Frenzel v OHIM — Ferdinand Richter (Richter + Frenzel) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/25

         Order of the General Court of 21 January 2015 — Richter + Frenzel v OHIM — Ferdinand Richter (Richter + Frenzel)
   (Case T-418/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 089/30)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Richter + Frenzel GmbH (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by: A. Pohlmann, and subsequently by: D. Botis, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Ferdinand Richter GmbH (Pasching, Austria) (represented by: M. Grötschl, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2013 (Case R 2001/2011-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Ferdinand Richter GmbH and Richter + Frenzel GmbH + Co. KG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case T-143/07: Order of the General Court of 14 December 2009 — UMG Recordings v OHIM — Osman (MOTOWN)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/48

         Order of the General Court of 14 December 2009 — UMG Recordings v OHIM — Osman (MOTOWN)
   (Case T-143/07) (1)

   2010/C 37/73

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.


title: Case C-523/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Walter Larcher v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bayern Süd

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany) lodged on 3 October 2013 — Walter Larcher v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bayern Süd
   (Case C-523/13)
   2014/C 24/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundessozialgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Walter Larcher

      Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bayern Süd

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the principle of equality laid down in Article 39(2) EC (now Article 45(2) TFEU) and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) preclude a national provision under which it is a condition of entitlement to an old-age pension following part-time work for older employees that the part-time work for older employees was pursued under the legislation of that Member State, and not of another Member State?

               2.

               If so, what requirements does the principle of equal treatment in Article 39(2) EC (now Article 45(2) TFEU) and Article 3(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 impose on the assimilation of part-time work for older employees completed under the legislation of the other Member State as a condition of entitlement to a national old-age pension:

                           (a)

                           Is a comparative examination of the conditions for part-time work for older employees needed?

                           (b)

                           If so, is it sufficient that the part-time work for older employees in both Member States is essentially the same in content, in terms of its functioning and structure?

                           (c)

                           Or must the conditions for part-time work for older employees in both Member States be identical in content?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).


title: Case C-222/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece)) — Konstantinos Maïstrellis v Ypourgos Dikaiosynis, Diafaneias kai Anthropinon Dikaiomaton (References for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 96/34/EC — Framework agreement on parental leave — Clause 2.1 — Individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth of a child — National legislation denying the right to such leave for a staff member whose wife does not work — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1)(c) — Working conditions — Direct discrimination)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece)) — Konstantinos Maïstrellis v Ypourgos Dikaiosynis, Diafaneias kai Anthropinon Dikaiomaton
   (Case C-222/14) (1)

   ((References for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 96/34/EC - Framework agreement on parental leave - Clause 2.1 - Individual right to parental leave on the grounds of the birth of a child - National legislation denying the right to such leave for a staff member whose wife does not work - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Articles 2(1)(a) and 14(1)(c) - Working conditions - Direct discrimination))
   (2015/C 302/12)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Konstantinos Maïstrellis

      Defendant: Ypourgos Dikaiosynis, Diafaneias kai Anthropinon Dikaiomaton

      Operative part of the judgment

   The provisions of Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC, as amended by Council Directive 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997, and Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation, must be interpreted as precluding national provisions under which a civil servant is not entitled to parental leave in a situation where his wife does not work or exercise any profession, unless it is considered that due to a serious illness or injury the wife is unable to meet the needs related to the upbringing of the child.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 21.7.2014.


title: Case T-14/05: Action brought on 12 January 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/25

         Action brought on 12 January 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-14/05)
   (2005/C 69/44)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 January 2005 by the Italian Republic, represented by Danilo Del Gaizo, Avvocato dello Stato.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that Commission Regulation (EC) No 1809/2004 is void ab initio;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This action is brought against Commission Regulation (EC) No 1809/2004 of 18 October 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 2848/98 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota buy-back programme in the raw tobacco sector (OJ L 318 of 19.10.2004) (‘the contested regulation’). The contested regulation adds to Article 36(1) of Regulation No 2848/98 a subparagraph which provides for a buy-back price for tobacco quotas relating to the 2004 harvest fixed at an amount equal to 40 % of the premium and states that that amount is to be paid before 31 May 2005.
   The Italian Government takes the view that the contested regulation infringes Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 (1) (and in particular Article 14a thereof) and that there is infringement of an essential procedural requirement and misuse of powers.
   In particular, the setting of a quota buy-back price for quotas bought back in respect of the 2004 harvest, which is, moreover, particularly high, identical and undifferentiated for all producers and for all qualities of tobacco varieties, payable almost immediately in a single payment, is, in the Italian Government's view, contrary to Article 14a of Council Regulation No 2075/92, as amended, inter alia, by Regulation No 1636/98.
   The Italian Government also considers that the setting of the contested level of the buy-back price cannot be regarded as being justified, and certainly cannot be justified by the reasons stated in the third recital in the preamble to the contested regulation, according to which: ‘For quotas under the 2004 harvest, the buy-back price should be fixed on the basis of the minimum level of aid which the farmer can receive under the direct payment scheme set up by Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 … Moreover, with a view to the implementation of the single payment scheme, the payment period for the buy-back price should be kept to a minimum.’ In that regard, it contends that the provisions of Regulation No 2075/92 were not repealed for the year under consideration (or for 2005) and that the Commission was not therefore authorised to use for the level of the buy-back price a legal basis completely different from the one which it should have adhered to in performing the operation or to pursue objectives completely different from and contrary to those which, on the basis of Council Regulation No 2075/92, should have justified its adoption.
   The Italian Government further alleges a failure to give reasons for the contested measure, both in respect of the setting of a buy-back price which is the same for all producers and takes no account of the individual varieties of tobacco produced and in respect of the quantification of the price at an amount equal to 40 % of the premium, as well as a conflict between the provisions of Article 1 of the contested regulation, the statements contained in its third recital and the reasons clearly stated in its second recital.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco (OJ L 215 of 30.07.1992, p. 70).


title: Joined Cases T-440/03, T-121/04, T-171/04, T-208/04, T-365/04 and T-484/04 (Non-contractual liability — Customs Union — Action for failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Reasoned Opinion — Abolition in French legislation of the monopoly of the profession of ship brokers — Sufficiently serious breach — Causal link: Judgment of the General Court of 18 December 2009 — Arizmendi and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/32

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 December 2009 — Arizmendi and Others v Council and Commission
   (Joined Cases T-440/03, T-121/04, T-171/04, T-208/04, T-365/04 and T-484/04 (1))
   (Non-contractual liability - Customs Union - Action for failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Reasoned Opinion - Abolition in French legislation of the monopoly of the profession of ship brokers - Sufficiently serious breach - Causal link)
   2010/C 37/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Jean Arizmendi (Bayonne, France) and the 60 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to the judgment (represented in Case T-440/03 by: J.-F. Péricaud, P. Péricaud and M. Tournois and, in Cases T-121/04, T-171/04, T-208/04, T-365/04 and T-484/04, by J.-F. Péricaud and M. Tournois, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented initially by J.-P. Jacqué and M. Giorgi Fort, then by F. Florindo Gijón and M. Balta, Agents); and the European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and, in Case T-121/04, by X. Lewis and B. Stromsky, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicants in Case T-440/03: Chambre nationale des courtiers maritimes de France (National Chamber of French ship brokers), Paris, France (represented by: J.-F. Péricaud, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for damages, brought under Article 235 EC and Article 288 EC, second paragraph, seeking compensation from the Community for the damage caused by the abolition of the monopoly of the French profession of ship brokers.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Mr Jean Arizmendi and the 60 other applicants whose names appear in the annex to bear their own costs and those of the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Chambre nationale des courtiers maritimes de France to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Council and the Commission to bear their own costs incurred by the intervention of the Chambre nationale des courtiers maritimes de France.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.


title: Case T-19/12: Action brought on 10 January 2012 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v OHIM — Impexmetal (KFŁT KRAŚNIK)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/16

         Action brought on 10 January 2012 — Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v OHIM — Impexmetal (KFŁT KRAŚNIK)
   (Case T-19/12)
   2012/C 109/36
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik (Kraśnik, Poland) (represented by: J. Sieklucki, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impexmetal S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 October 2011 (Case No R 2475/2010-1) refusing registration of KFŁT KRAŚNIK as a Community trade mark for goods in Class 7: machines and tool-making machines; rolling-element bearings and parts thereof (ball-bearings, rolling elements); spherical roller bearings and large-dimension roller bearings;

               —

               order the defendant and IMPEXMETAL S.A. to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘KFŁT KRAŚNIK’ for goods in Class 7: machines and tool-making machines; rolling-element bearings and parts thereof (ball-bearings, rolling elements); spherical roller bearings and large-dimension roller bearings.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade marks No CTM-3415437 and CTM-3415379, for goods in Class 7, and the national (Polish) trade marks No PL-45550, PL-45826 and PL-112347, for goods in Class 7.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, (1) in so far as it was held that the trade marks are similar and that there was a likelihood of confusion, and breach of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-30/15: Judgment of the General Court of 19 February 2016 — Infinite Cycle Works v OHIM — Chance Good Ent. (INFINITY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark INFINITY — Earlier Community word mark INFINI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 February 2016 — Infinite Cycle Works v OHIM — Chance Good Ent. (INFINITY)
   (Case T-30/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark INFINITY - Earlier Community word mark INFINI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 111/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Infinite Cycle Works Ltd (Delta, Canada) (represented by: E. Manresa Medina and J.M. Manresa Medina, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Chance Good Ent. Co., Ltd (Changhua, Taiwan) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 (Case R 2308/2013-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Chance Good Ent. Co., Ltd, and Infinite Cycle Works Ltd.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Infinite Cycle Works Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case C-258/06: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/26

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-258/06) (1)

   (2006/C 331/58)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.