title: Case C-275/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/36/EEC — Public supply contracts — Supply of software designed for motor vehicle registration — Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-275/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/36/EEC - Public supply contracts - Supply of software designed for motor vehicle registration - Negotiated procedure without prior publication of a contract notice)
   2009/C 297/13
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and D. Kukovec, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and N. Graf Vitzthum, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 6, in conjunction with Article 9, of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1) — Contract for the supply of a software application designed for motor vehicle registration concluded without contracting procedures between two bodies governed by public law responsible for data-processing on behalf of local authorities

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by reason of the fact that the Datenzentrale Baden-Württemberg (Central Data Office of Baden-Württemberg) awarded a contract for the supply of software designed for motor vehicle registration by a negotiated procedure without publication of a contract notice, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts;

               2.

               orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.08.2008.


title: Case T-230/14: Action brought on 15 April 2014  — Deutsche Edelstahlwerke v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/13

         Action brought on 15 April 2014 — Deutsche Edelstahlwerke v Commission
   (Case T-230/14)
   2014/C 223/18
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Edelstahlwerke GmbH (Witten, Germany) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and H. Janssen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 107(1) TFEU because the EEG-surcharge provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) and the special compensation regime did not constitute an allocation of State or State-controlled resources. All the facts relevant to the qualification of those measures were determined in the preliminary proceedings between the Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany. There were no longer any doubts, which the Commission should have found in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty

                           —

                           The applicant submits in that regard that the Commission infringed Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty by applying the procedure for new aid pursuant to Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 instead of the procedure for existing aid pursuant to Article 17 et seq. of Regulation No 659/1999 in order to review its provisional assessment of the EEG as aid. In that regard, the applicant observes in particular that, by decision of 22 May 2002, the Commission did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources. The changes from the 2000 EEG to the 2012 EEG were not substantial in comparison to the Commission decision of 22 May 2002. The Commission, therefore, could have asserted an amended legal opinion in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(1) TFEU without impacting on the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of audi alteram partem

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that the defendant adopted the contested decision without previously giving the applicant the opportunity to provide comments.

      (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 T-166/11: Action brought on 17 March 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Infront)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/33

         Action brought on 17 March 2011 — Häfele v OHIM (Infront)
   (Case T-166/11)
   2011/C 145/55
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by M. Eck and J. Dönch, lawyers)

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

      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 17 January 2011 in Case R 1711/2010-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Infront’ for goods in Classes 6 and 20

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as the Community trade mark in question has distinctive character, is not descriptive and is not a designation which has become customary

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


title: Case C-297/05: Action brought on  22 July 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/11

         Action brought on 22 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-297/05)
   (2005/C 296/22)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Michel van Beek and Désirée Zijlstra, acting as Agents.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by requiring motor vehicles which have previously been registered in another Member State to undergo a technical examination before they can be registered in the Netherlands, where no such examination is required in the case where a motor vehicle previously registered in the Netherlands is transferred to the ownership or control of another person established there, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The technical examinations which the Netherlands require motor vehicles previously registered in another Member State to undergo as a precondition of entry in the national vehicle licence plate register cannot be justified in the light of the objectives mentioned in Article 30 EC or for the purpose of meeting any mandatory requirement as recognised in the Court's case-law.


27.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 180/35
Action brought on 7 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef against                         Removal from the register of Case T-113/97 (1)
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2002/C 180/61)
                         (Case T-175/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                         (2002/C 180/60)
                                                                          By order of 21 February 2002 the President of the First
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-113/97: Pierre Tomarchio v the Court of Auditors of the
                                                                          European Communities.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 June 2002 by Giorgio Lebedef,                   (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
residing in Senningerberg (Luxembourg), represented by Gilles
Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-2/01 (1)
—     annul decision 9567 of 28 February 2002 of the Director
      General of DG ADMIN not to add the applicant’s name                                         (2002/C 180/62)
      to the list of most deserving officials and not to promote
      him to Grade B 1 in the 2000 promotions procedure;                                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
—     make an order as to costs requiring the European
      Commission to pay them.                                             By order of 29 April 2002 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-2/01: Vereni-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           ging Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC) v Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities.
In the present application, the applicant, an official working            (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
for the defendant, challenges the appointing authority’s refusal
to promote him to Grade B 1 during the 2000 promotions
procedure.
In support of his claims, he pleads:
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-3/01 (1)
—     Infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations and
      of the principle of non-discrimination;                                                     (2002/C 180/63)
—     Breach of the rights of the defence;                                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
—     Disregard in the present case of the obligation to provide
      reasons;                                                            By order of 29 April 2002 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
—     Breach of the principle that legitimate expectations must           ordered the removal from the register of Case T-3/01: Eerste
      be protected, and of the duty of the administration to              Nederlandse Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV v Commission of the
      have regard for the wellbeing of officials.                         European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.


title: Action brought on 4 October 1995 by 'P' against Commission of the European Commmunities (Case T-181/95)

text:
9 . 12 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 333/ 17
Action brought on 4 October 1995 by 'P' against                      an abusive breach of the legitimate expectation which it
         Commission of the European Commmunities                     consistently induced her to nurture .
                       ( Case T-181 /95 )
                         ( 95/C 333/32 )
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Action brought on 4 October 1995 by Giuseppe Carraro
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European                                            Case T-l 83/95
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                                ( 95/C 333/33 )
Instance of the European Communities on 4 October 1995
by ' P', represented by Marie Vicelli and Jean-Pierre Spitzer,
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                         (Language of the case: Italian)
at the office of Aloyse May, 30 Grand-Rue .
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          Instance of the European Communities on 4 October 1994
                                                                     by Giuseppe Carraro, an official employed at the Joint
— annul the decision taken on 10 February 1995 by the                Research Centre at Ispra and resident at Varese, represented
     office responsible for settling claims,                         by Giuseppe Marchesini, avvocato at the Court of Cassation
                                                                     of the Italian Republic, with an address for service in
— annul the decision taken on 5 January 1995 by the office           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue
     responsible for settling claims, as clarified and               Mathias Hardt .
     supplemented by the letter of 30 June 1995 ,
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the applicant is entitled to 100%
     reimbursement of her medical expenses, including the            — annul the measure implicitly refusing him assistance in
     residential expenses of her stay in a psychiatric hospital          contravention of the first subparagraph of Article 24 of
     and checks made subsequent to hospitalization up to                 the Staff Regulations, which gives rise to all the grounds
     31 December 1999 ,                                                  in this case .
— order the Commission to pay retroactively all of the               — order the Commission to pay compensation for the
     amounts which the applicant has been required to                    non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a
                                                                         result of the circulation of the defamatory letter the
     pay ,
                                                                         contents of which have never as yet been officially denied
                                                                         by the administration, which he assesses at ECU 10 000,
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs .                         and also to pay the legal costs to be incurred by the
                                                                         applicant in claiming damages in criminal proceedings
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                         before the national court, assessed at ECU 3 000,
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs and expenses of
The applicant, who is the widow of a Community official                  these proceedings.
and has been in hospital since 1984 by reason of a serious
mental illness, contests two decisions reducing the duration
and scope of the reimbursements hitherto made in                     Pleas in law and main arguments:
connection with her stay in a psychiatric hospital .
                                                                     The applicant is an official of the Commission employed in
                                                                     the Infrastructure Division of the Joint Research Centre at
The applicant first takes the view that the administrative           Ispra where he performs the duties of a design engineer in
procedure which resulted in the adoption of the contested            renovation, maintenance and alteration works for the
decisions suffers from serious irregularities . She claims that      buildings at the Centre and also the task of supervising
the defendant did not take care to obtain in advance the
                                                                     contracted works . In carrying out those duties, the applicant
opinion of the institution's medical officer regarding the           had responsibility for inspecting the work done and
state of the applicant's health and that it manifestly failed to     checking whether the costs relating to the renovation
enable her to express her views in an effective manner . By          contract for the west wing of building 20/A, entered into by
acting in this way, the defendant infringed essential                the Commission and a local outside undertaking, were
procedural requirements and failed to respect the                    appropriate .
applicant's rights of defence .
                                                                     When the works were finished, after checking that they had
The applicant also pleads a breach of the applicable rules,          been carried out in a workmanlike manner and examining
arguing that the fact of basing the contested decisions on           the quantities indicated by the contractor and the payments
Point XV ( 3 ) of Annex I to the Rules on Sickness Insurance         made while the work was in progress, the applicant
for Officials of the European Communities implies a                  informed the administration that because of work which
mistaken interpretation of that provision. She also submits          had either not been carried out at all or of which less had
that the administration's conduct towards her amounts to             been done than stipulated, the works must be considered to


title: Case T-184/15: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Trivisio Prototyping v Commission (Funding — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Contracts concerning the projects ULTRA, CINeSPACE and IMPROVE — Partial reclassification of the action — Enforceable decision — Article 299 TFEU — Arbitration clause — Eligible costs — Recovery of sums paid)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Trivisio Prototyping v Commission
   (Case T-184/15) (1)

   ((Funding - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Contracts concerning the projects ULTRA, CINeSPACE and IMPROVE - Partial reclassification of the action - Enforceable decision - Article 299 TFEU - Arbitration clause - Eligible costs - Recovery of sums paid))
   (2017/C 006/41)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Trivisio Prototyping GmbH (Trier, Germany) (represented initially by A. Bartosch and A. Böhlke, and subsequently by A. Böhlke, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude and F. Moro, acting as agents, and R. van der Hout and S. Blazek, lawyers)

      Re:

   First, application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2015) 633 final of 2 February 2015 concerning recovery of the sum of EUR 385 112,19 together with interest and, second, application based on Article 272 TFEU seeking a declaration that the debt claimed by the Commission against Trivisio Prototyping is non-existent.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Trivisio Prototyping GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: Case T-46/06: Action brought on  13 February 2006  — Galileo Lebensmittel v Commission

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/39

         Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Galileo Lebensmittel v Commission
   (Case T-46/06)
   (2006/C 86/77)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. KG (Trierweiler, Germany) (represented by: K. Bott, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant's decision to reserve the domain galileo.eu and order the defendant to allow the registry issuing eu. Top Level Domains (EURid) to register freely the domain Galileo.eu.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant applied for registration of the domain ‘galileo.eu’ as an eu. Top Level Domain. The Registry, EURid, refused that registration on the ground that the domain applied for is reserved for the defendant.
   In support of its application the applicant alleges infringement of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 (1). In addition, it claims that its rights under the second paragraph of Article 2, the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) and the third subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004 have been infringed.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration.


title: Removal from the register of C-187/95

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/ 19
          Removal from the register of C-187/95 (*)                             Removal from the register of C-363/95 0 )
                           ( 97/C 199/39                                                           ( 97/C 199/43 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-187/95 ( Reference for a                   from the register of Case C-363/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Roma,     Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli       ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division)): criminal proceedings            Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Angelo Deodati and Aldo Luchini .                              against Giuseppe Tancredi .
O OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 .
          Removal from the register of C-331/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/40 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 77/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/44 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-331 /95 ( Reference for a                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   from the register of Case C-377/95 ( Reference for a
Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
against Giuseppe Piccolo.                                              Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                                                                       against Tersilio Onorati .
H OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       H OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-332/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/41 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 78/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/45 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-332/95 ( Reference for a                   By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Roma,       Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli        ( Rome District        from the register of Case C-378/95 ( Reference for a
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
against Mario Corbo and Others .                                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                                                                       Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                      against Palma Mariulli .
                                                                        ') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-342/95 H
                            ( 97/C 199/42 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-l/96 SA (')
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                                             ( 97/C 199/46 )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-342/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   By order of 24 April 1997 the President of the Court of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           removal from the register of Case C-l /96 SA: SA Must
against Miranda Viola .                                                Interim v. Commission of the European Communities.
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                        ') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .


title: Case T-262/12: Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2014  — Central Bank of Iran v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Lis pendens — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence)

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 September 2014 — Central Bank of Iran v Council
   (Case T-262/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Lis pendens - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence))
   2014/C 388/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Central Bank of Iran (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister)

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

      Re:

   Application for, in essence, annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22) and Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), in so far as they listed or maintained the listing, after review, of the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and (ii) Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning the adoption of restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as they listed or maintained the listing, after review, of the applicant in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1), in so far as it listed Central Bank of Iran in Annex IX thereto;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of Central Bank of Iran;

               4.

               Orders Central Bank of Iran to bear one half of its own costs and to pay one half of the costs of the Council.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 24 April 1997, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Abdulnasir Savas (Case C-37/98)

text:
11.4.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 113/7
Thionville Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            resources in accordance with environmental criteria. It
at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 rue Mathias                      should have been adopted pursuant to the procedure laid
Hardt, against the judgment delivered on 5 November                  down in Article 130s(2) of the Treaty, which requires the
1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance             Council to act unanimously. Consequently, the conclusion
of the European Communities in Case T-26/89 (125)                    of international agreements on such matters likewise
Henri de Compte v. European Parliament.                              requires such unanimity (second sentence of Article
                                                                     228(2)).
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     The position adopted by the Council, which followed the
Ð declare the appeal to be admissible and well-founded,              Commission's proposal, disregards Article 130s(2) as
                                                                     regards measures relating to the management of water
Ð set aside the judgment of 5 November 1997 of the                   resources. The fact that the contested decision was
     Court of First Instance (1),                                    approved on an incorrect legal basis means that it is
                                                                     automatically void.
Ð refer the case back to the Court of First Instance in
     order that it may declare the application for revision          (1) OJ L 342, 12.12.1997, p. 18.
     to be admissible,
Ð order the Parliament to pay the costs of the present
     proceedings and of those before the Court of First
     Instance.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
                                                                     24 April 1997, in the case of The Queen against Secretary
Unjustified failure to acknowledge as a new fact a                   of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Abdulnasir
document drafted by the Rapporteur of the Budgetary                                               Savas
Control Committee of the European Parliament detailing
                                                                                (Case C-37/98)
the case of the Members' cash office and contesting point
by point the audit documentation drawn up by the                                             (98/C 113/17)
Parliament authorities with a view to proving the
appellant's guilt.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the Divisional
( ) In Case T-26/89 (125) (OJ C 387, 20.12.1997, p. 17).
 1
                                                                     Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 24 April 1997, which
                                                                     was received at the Court Registry on 16 February 1998,
                                                                     for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
                                                                     Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                                                                     Abdulnasir Savas, on the following questions.
Action brought on 16 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
      Spain against the Council of the European Union                1. Is the agreement establishing an Association between
                                                                         the European Economic Community and Turkey,
                        (Case C-36/98)
                                                                         signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 (the
                         (98/C 113/16)                                   Agreement') together with the additional Protocol to
                                                                         the Agreement signed at Brussels on 23 November
                                                                         1970 (the additional Protocol') to be interpreted as
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         conferring benefits on a Turkish national who has (a)
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         entered or (b) remained in the territory of a Member
Communities on 16 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
                                                                         State in breach of the immigration law of that
Spain, represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, abogado
                                                                         Member State?
del Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 boulevard E. Servais.
                                                                     2. If the answer to either part of the first question is yes'
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              does (a) Article 13 of the Agreement (b) Article 41 of
                                                                         the additional Protocol have direct effect within the
Ð annul Council Decision 97/825/EC of 24 November                        national legal systems of Member States?
     1997 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on
     Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable use of           3. Does the Agreement together with the additional
     the river Danube (1),                                               Protocol prohibit the application by a Member State
                                                                         of a provision in its national law which refuses that
Ð order the Council to pay the costs.                                    Turkish national leave to remain on the territory of
                                                                         that Member State on the sole ground that his leave to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      enter or remain in the territory has expired?
The Kingdom of Spain considers that the Convention is                4. Where, despite the provisions of its national law, the
clearly designed to provide for the management of water                  competent authority in a Member State considers, in
 ---pagebreak--- C 113/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.4.98
    the exercise of its discretion, an application by a              d'Appello di Torino (Court of Appeal, Turin) of
    Turkish national to remain in its territory, is that             19 November 1997, which was received at the Court
    competent authority obliged to take into account the             Registry on 16 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
    existence of the Agreement together with the                     the case of SA ReÂgie Nationale des Usines Renault v. SpA
    additional Protocol?                                             Maxicar and Orazio Formento on the following questions:
5. If the answer to question No 4 is yes', is the
    competent authority in the Member State required to
    have regard to the principle of proportionality in               1. Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty to be
    exercising its discretion?                                           interpreted as precluding the holder of industrial or
                                                                         intellectual design rights in a Member State from
6. If the answer to question No 5 is yes', what factors                 asserting the corresponding exclusive right so as to
    are to be taken into account by the competent                        prevent third parties from manufacturing, selling and
    national authority in determining whether deportation                exporting to another Member State component parts
    is proportionate?                                                    which, taken as a whole, make up the bodywork of a
                                                                         car already on the market, that is to say, component
                                                                         parts intended to be sold as spare parts for that car?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura di Roma            2. Is Article 86 of the EC Treaty to be applied so as to
by order of that court of 6 October 1997 in the case of                  prohibit the abuse of the dominant position held by
            Kazemi Nava against Confcommercio                            each car manufacturer in the market for spare parts
                                                                         for cars of its manufacture, which consists in seeking
                        (Case C-11/98)                                   to eliminate any competition from independent
                         (98/C 113/18)                                   manufacturers of spare parts through the exercise of
                                                                         its industrial and intellectual design rights and the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   attendant judicial penalties?
European Communities by order of the Pretura di Roma
(Rome Magistrate's Court) of 6 October 1997, which was
received at the Court Registry on 15 January 1998, for a             3. Is, therefore, a judgment handed down by a court of a
preliminary ruling in the case of Kazemi Nava against                    Member State to be considered contrary to public
Confcommercio on the following question.                                 policy within the meaning of Article 27 of the Brussels
                                                                         Convention if it recognises industrial or intellectual
Must the term employer' contained in Article 1 of
                                                                         design rights over such component parts which, taken
Directive 75/129/EEC (1) of 17 February 1975 be
                                                                         as a whole, make up the bodywork of a car and
understood as including non-profit-making organisations,
                                                                         affords protection to the holder of such purported
which act on behalf of their own members who are,
                                                                         exclusive rights by preventing third parties trading in
moreover, required periodically to pay a subscription, and
                                                                         another Member State from manufacturing, selling,
which represent and protect the interests of undertakings
                                                                         transporting, importing or exporting in that Member
and politicial, social, economic and trade union
                                                                         State such component parts which, taken as a whole,
organisations and serve to further the economic and social
                                                                         make up the bodywork of a car already on the
interests of undertakings: in other words, those
                                                                         market, or, in any event, by sanctioning such conduct?
organisations, such as Confcommercio, which may also be
defined as associations of trade unions in the light of the
objects set forth in their memoranda of association. If the
reply is in the affirmative, is the national court required to
disapply the concept of undertaking' as mentioned in Law
No 223/1991?
(1) OJ L 48, 22.7.1975, p. 29.
                                                                     Action brought on 24 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
                                                                          Spain against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-45/98)
                                                                                (98/C 113/20)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte
d'Appello di Torino (Court of Appeal, Turin) by order of
that court of 19 November 1997 in the case of SA ReÂgie
Nationale des Usines Renault v. SpA Maxicar and Orazio               An action against the Council of the European Union was
                           Formento                                  brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                        (Case C-38/98)                               Communities on 24 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain, represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, abogado
                         (98/C 113/19)                               del Estado, of the State Legal Service responsible for
                                                                     representing the Spanish Government before the Court of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Justice, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
European Communities by an order of the Corte                        Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 boulevard E. Servais.


title: Case C-266/05 P: Appeal brought on 27 June 2005 by Jose Maria Sison against the judgment delivered on 26 April 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03, between Jose Maria Sison and the Council of the European Union

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/4

         Appeal brought on 27 June 2005 by Jose Maria Sison against the judgment delivered on 26 April 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03, between Jose Maria Sison and the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-266/05 P)
   (2005/C 243/06)
   Language of the case: English
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 April 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-405/03 (1), between Jose Maria Sison and the Council of the European Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 June 2005 by Jose Maria Sison, residing in Utrecht, Netherlands, represented by J. Fermon, A. Comte, H. Schultz and D. Gurses, lawyers.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2005 in Joined Cases T-110/03, T-150/03 and T-450/03.

               —

               annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, the following: (a) Council Decision of 27 February 2003 (06/c/01/03): Answer adopted by the Council on 27 February 2003 to the confirmatory application of Mr Jan Fermon sent by fax on 3 February 2003 under Article 7 (2) of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (2), notified to the applicant's counsel on 28 February 2003; (b) Council Decision of 21 January 2003 (41/c/01/02): Answer adopted by the Council on 21 January 2003 to the confirmatory application of Mr Jan Fermon sent by fax on 11 December 2002 under Article 7 (2) of the Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, notified to the Applicant's counsel on 23 January 2003; and (c) Council Decision of 2 October 2003 (36/c/02/03): Reply adopted by the Council on 2 October 2003 to the confirmatory application by Mr Jan Fermon (2/03) made to the Council by telefax on 5 September 2003 registered by the General Secretariat of the Council on 8 September 2003, pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, for access to documents.

               —

               require the Council to bear the costs of suit.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of First Instance should be annulled on the following grounds:

               1.

               Infringement of Articles 220, 225 and 230 EC, of the general principle of Community law enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 ECHR and of the rights of defense.
               The Court of First Instance unduly limits the scope of its review of legality without responding to the applicant's arguments.

               2.

               Infringement of the right of access to documents (Article 1 EU second paragraph and Article 6(1) EU, Article 255 EC and, Article 4, paragraph 1 (a), Article 4 paragraph 6, and of Articles 220, 225 and 230 EC).
               The review made by the Court of first Instance effectively leads to a complete discretion of the Council and to a complete denial of the right of access to documents.

               3.

               Infringement of the duty to state reason (Article 253 EC) and of Articles 220, 225 and 230 EC.
               The Court of First Instance review leads to a denial of the duty to state reason and infringes Article 253 EC.

               4.

               Infringement of the right of access to documents (Article 1 EU second paragraph and Article 6(1) EU, Article 255 EC) and of Article 6.2 of the ECHR and the right to the presumption of innocence and Article 13 ECHR establishing the right to an effective remedy to violations of the rights enshrined in the ECHR.
               The Court of First Instance arbitrarily limits the scope of the case.

               5.

               Infringement of the right of access to documents and of Article 1 EU second paragraph and Article 6(1) EU, Article 255 EC and, Article 4, paragraph 5 and Article 9, paragraph 3 of Council Regulation 1049/2001.
               The Court of First Instance misinterpreted and misapplied Articles 4 and 9 of Council Regulation 1049/2001.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 09.07.05, p. 15

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents


title: Case C-137/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office), by order of that court of 31 March 2000, in the cases of The Queen against 1) The Monopolies and Mergers Commission 2) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Milk Marque Ltd and The Queen against 1) The Competition Commission 2) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 3) Director General of Fair Trading, Ex Parte: National Farmers' Union

text:
C 176/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.6.2000
(3) Does the fact that the exchange of views is to take place at        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
     an earlier stage, without the undertaking which has                Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
     allegedly submitted an irregular tender being assured of an        (Crown Office), by order of that court of 31 March 2000,
     opportunity to state its reasons, after the opening of the         in the cases of The Queen against 1) The Monopolies and
     envelopes and before the adoption of the measure exclud-           Mergers Commission 2) Secretary of State for Trade and
     ing it, represent an obstacle to the application of Article        Industry, Ex parte: Milk Marque Ltd and The Queen
     30(4) of Directive 93/37?                                          against 1) The Competition Commission 2) Secretary of
                                                                        State for Trade and Industry 3) Director General of Fair
(4) Does a provision under which the contracting authority                       Trading, Ex Parte: National Farmers’ Union
     may take account of explanations relating solely to the
     economy of the construction method or the technical                                         (Case C-137/00)
     solutions adopted or the exceptionally favourable con-
     ditions available to the tenderer represent an obstacle to
     the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?                                        (2000/C 176/18)
(5) Does the [exclusion] of explanations relating exclusively to        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     items for which minimum values have been established by            European Communities by an order of the High Court of
     administrative provisions or can be inferred from official         Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
     lists represent an obstacle to the application of Article          Office) of 31 March 2000, which was received at the Court
     30(4) of Directive 93/37?                                          Registry on 11 April 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                        of The Queen against 1) The Monopolies and Mergers
                                                                        Commission 2) Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex
(1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the          parte: Milk Marque Ltd and The Queen against 1) The
    coordination of procedures for the award of public works            Competition Commission 2) Secretary of State for Trade and
    contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54).                            Industry 3) Director General of Fair Trading, Ex parte: National
                                                                        Farmers’ Union, on the following questions:
                                                                        1. Are Articles 32 to 38 (ex Articles 38 to 46) EC, Council
                                                                            Regulation 26/62/EEC (1) and Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                            No 804/68 (2), as amended, to be interpreted as precluding
                                                                            a Member State from applying national laws such as the
                                                                            Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1998 to
                                                                            the manner in which producers of milk choose to organise
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kuopion                         themselves into co-operatives and conduct themselves in
Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 22 March 2000                     regard to the sale and processing of their milk:
               in the case of Rolf Dieter Danner
                                                                            (a) in all circumstances; or
                         (Case C-136/00)
                                                                            (b) where the intended or actual effect is to deprive such
                         (2000/C 176/17)                                        producers of the ability to increase the price obtained
                                                                                for their milk; or
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            (c) where the intended or actual effect is to reduce
European Communities by an order of the Kuopion Hallinto-
                                                                                the price that producers obtain for their milk in
oikeus (Administrative Court, Kuopio), Finland, of 22 March
                                                                                circumstances where that price is already below the
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April
                                                                                target price fixed pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Rolf Dieter
                                                                                804/68; or
Danner on the following question:
                                                                            (d) in a way which is not consistent with any one or more
Is the restriction described above of the right to deduct for                   of the following:
tax purposes pension insurance contributions payable from
Finland to a foreign institution, laid down in the first sentence
of Paragraph 96(9) of the Tuloverolaki (Income Tax Law),                        (i) the objectives set out in Article 33 EC (ex Article
contrary to Article 59 of the EC Treaty referred to in the appeal                     39); and/or
(now Article 49 EC) or to the other articles referred to in the
appeal (Articles 6, 60, 73b, 73d and 92 of the EC Treaty) or                    (ii) the policy, aims or functioning of the common
the corresponding present articles (Articles 12, 50, 56, 58 and                       organisation of the market in milk and milk
87 EC)?                                                                               products; and/or
                                                                                (iii) the policy of Article 36 EC (ex Article 42) and
                                                                                Regulation 26?
 ---pagebreak--- 24.6.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 176/11
2. Does the function of the target price for milk set by the               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
     Council under Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 preclude a                   richtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 30 March
     Member State from:                                                    2000 in the case of (1) Solida Raiffeisen Immobilien
                                                                           Leasing GmbH and (2) Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts-
                                                                           und Technologiepark GmbH against Finanzlandesdirek-
     (a) making use of the target price as an indicator of                      tion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland
          the actual price movements due to the common
          agricultural policy; and
                                                                                (Case C-138/00)
     (b) treating the fact that a milk producers’ co-operative in
          that State has achieved for its members milk prices                                        (2000/C 176/19)
          that are below the target price, but are nearer to the
          target price in one period of time than another, as
          supporting a conclusion that the co-operative exercises          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
          market power which contributes to prices being higher            European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
          than they would have reached under more competitive              hof (Higher Administrative Court, Vienna) of 30 March 2000,
          conditions.                                                      received at the Court Registry on 10 April 2000, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of (1) Solida Raiffeisen Immobi-
3. Are Articles 28 to 30, EC (ex Articles 30, 34 and 36) and               lien Leasing GmbH and (2) Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts-
     Articles 49 and 55 (ex Articles 59 and 66) to be interpreted          und Technologiepark GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für
     as precluding a Member State from applying national laws              Wien, Niederdösterreich und Burgenland (Tax Board for
     such as the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition                 Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland) on the following
     Act 1998 in such a way as to prohibit a milk producers’               question:
     co-operative which has been found to enjoy market power
     from sending milk produced by its members to be
                                                                           ‘Do payments which a non-member of a capital company
     processed by contractors on its behalf, including in other
                                                                           makes to the company for the acquisition of dividend rights
     Member States, as a step being taken by the co-operative
                                                                           constitute “assets of any kind contributed or to be contributed
     for the purpose of exploiting its position in the market in
                                                                           by the members” within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of
     its favour?
                                                                           Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July concerning indirect
                                                                           taxes on the raising of capital (1)?’
4. Where large vertically-integrated dairy co-operatives exist
     and are permitted to operate in other Member States,
     is the general principle of non-discrimination, whether               (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
     independently or as given specific effect in Articles 12
     and/or 34 EC (ex Articles 6 and 40), to be interpreted as
     precluding a Member State from applying national laws
     such as the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition
     Act 1998 to prohibit a milk producers’ co-operative which
     has been found to enjoy market power from:
     (a) acquiring or building further plant for the processing
          of milk produced by its members, which would give
          the co-operative the ability to exploit still further its        Action brought on 12 April 2000 by the Commission of
          position in the market in its favour; or                         the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
     (b) sending milk produced by its members to be processed
          by contractors on its behalf, whether within the                                           (Case C-140/00)
          Member State concerned or in other Member States, as
          a step being taken by the co-operative for the purpose
          of exploiting its position in the market in its favour?                                    (2000/C 176/20)
                                                                           An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
(1) EEC Council: Regulation No 26 applying certain rules of compe-         Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice
    tition to production of and trade in agricultural products (OJ 30,     of the European Communities on 12 April 2000 by the
    20.04.62, p. 993 [SE SER1 (59-62) p. 129]).                            Commission of the European Communities, represented by
(2) Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on
    the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products
                                                                           Thomas van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Keir Fitch, an official
    (OJ L 148, 28.6.68, p. 13 [SE SER1 68(I) p. 176]).                     seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service under the arrange-
                                                                           ment for the exchange of national officials, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                           Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
                                                                           Commission, Centre Wagner.


title: Case C-430/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (The Netherlands) lodged on 17 September 2007 — Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk & Zoon B.V. v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (The Netherlands) lodged on 17 September 2007 — Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk & Zoon B.V. v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-430/07)
   (2007/C 297/38)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Raad van State
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Exportslachterij J. Gosschalk & Zoon B.V.

      Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are the BSE tests which from 1 January 2001 were obligatory under the Regeling uitvoer vers vlees en vleesbereidingen (Regulation on the export of fresh meat and meat preparations) 1985 (Staatscourant 2001, No. 218), which served to implement Article 1(3) of Decision 2000/764/EC (1) on the testing of bovine animals for the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and amending Decision 98/272/EC on epidemio-surveillance for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, tests within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market (2)?

               2.

               If so, should Article 2(1) of Regulation No 2777/2000 be seen as an intervention intended to stabilise the beef market (market support) within the meaning of Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 1258/1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (3), or as a specific veterinary measure within the meaning of subparagraph (d) of this provision, or both?

               3.

               If it is (also) a case of market support, does it then mean, given the judgment of the Court in Case C-239/01 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission
                   (4), that the tests should be financed exclusively by the Community and that therefore Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2777/2000 is invalid because of conflict with Regulation No 1254/1999 (5) in that it provides that the Community only partially contributes to the costs of the BSE tests?

               4.

               If Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2777/2000 is valid, does this Regulation then preclude the Member States from passing on the costs for carrying out BSE tests to the market participants?

               5.

               Must the last sentence of Article 5(4) of Directive 85/73/EEC on the financing of veterinary inspections and controls (6) covered by Directives 89/662/EEC (7), 90/425/EEC (8), 90/675/EEC (9) and 91/496/EEC (10), as amended and consolidated by Council Directive 96/43/EC, be interpreted as meaning that this Directive does not preclude the Member State from passing on the costs of the BSE tests which were carried out? If so, what requirements must be met by a fee for the BSE tests which were carried out?

      (1)  Commission Decision of 29 November 2000 (OJ 2000 L 305, p. 35).

      (2)  Commission Regulation of 18 December 2000 (OJ 2000 L 321, p. 47).

      (3)  Council Regulation of 17 May 1999 (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 103).

      (4)  Federal Republic of Germany v Commission [2003] ECR I-10333.

      (5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21).

      (6)  Council Directive of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14).

      (7)  Council Directive of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1990 L 151, p. 40).

      (8)  Council Directive of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market (OJ 1990 L 224, p. 29).

      (9)  Council Directive of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (OJ 1990 L 373, p. 1).

      (10)  Council Directive of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on animals entering the Community from third countries and amending Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (OJ 1991 L 268, p. 56).


title: Case T-392/16: Order of the General Court of 13 October 2016 — Axium v Parliament

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/55

         Order of the General Court of 13 October 2016 — Axium v Parliament
   (Case T-392/16) (1)

   (2017/C 014/66)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 5.9.2016.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 15 January 1998 in Case C-80/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Quelle Schickedanz AG und Co. v. Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main (Common Customs Tariff - Classification of a set of goods - Validity of point 6 of the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1966/94)

text:
C 55/14              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       20.2.98
Procurement Office), Austria, for a preliminary ruling in               European Investment Bank and the other existing
the proceedings pending before that court between                       financial instruments is to be interpreted as meaning
Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria AG and Others and                         that Community funding of a works project is not
Strohal Rotationsdruck GesmbH Ð on the interpretation                   conditional upon the recipients complying with the
of Article 1(b) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June               review procedures within the meaning of Council
1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the                  Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
award of public works contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8. 1993,                   coordination       of    the   laws,    regulations    and
p. 54) and Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     administrative provisions relating to the application of
No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC)                    review procedures to the award of public supply and
No 2052/88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their               public works contracts if they are not themselves
effectiveness and on coordination of their activities                   contracting authorities within the meaning of
between themselves and with the operations of the                       Article 1(b) of Directive 93/37/EEC.
European Investment Bank and the other existing financial
instruments (OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 5) Ð the Court,               (1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
Gulmann, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón,
Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
15 January 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 15 January 1998
1. An entity such as the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei
    must be regarded as a body governed by public law              in Case C-80/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
    within the meaning of the second subparagraph of               the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Quelle Schickedanz
    Article 1(b) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June         AG und Co. v. Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main (1)
    1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for             (Common Customs Tariff Ð Classification of a set of
    the award of public works contracts, and thus as a             goods Ð Validity of point 6 of the Annex to Commission
    contracting authority within the meaning of the first                           Regulation (EC) No 1966/94)
    subparagraph of that provision so that works
    contracts, of whatever nature, entered into by that                                       (98/C 55/26)
    entity are to be considered to be public works
    contracts within the meaning of Article 1(a) of that                           (Language of the case: German)
    Directive.
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
2. An undertaking which carries on commercial activities
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
    and in which a contracting authority has a majority
    shareholding is not to be regarded as a body governed
    by public law within the meaning of Article 1(b) of            In Case C-80/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
    Directive 93/37/EEC, and thus as a contracting                 of the EC Treaty from the Hessisches Finanzgericht
    authority within the meaning of that provision, on the         (Hessen Finance Court), Kassel, Germany, for a
    sole ground that that undertaking was established by           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
    the contracting authority or that the contracting              court between Quelle Schickedanz AG und Co. and
    authority transferred to it funds which it has earned          Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main Ð on the
    from activities pursued in order to meet needs in the          interpretation and validity of point 6 of the Annex to
    general interest, not having an industrial or                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1966/94 of 28 July 1994
    commercial character.                                          concerning the classification of certain goods in the
                                                                   Combined Nomenclature (OJ L 198, 30.7.1994, p. 103)
                                                                   Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
3. A public works contract is not subject to the                   President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L.
    provisions of Directive 93/37/EEC when it relates to a         Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; D.
    project which, from the outset, falls entirely within the      Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
    objects of an undertaking which is not a contracting           Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 January 1998, in
    authority and when the works contracts relating to             which it has ruled:
    that project were entered into by a contracting
    authority on behalf of that undertaking.
                                                                   1. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1966/94 of 28 July
                                                                        1994 concerning the classification of certain goods in
4. Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93                  the Combined Nomenclature is invalid insofar as in
    of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2052/                  point 6 of the Annex thereto it classifies goods put up
    88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their                   in sets for retail sale, comprising a brassieÁre and briefs,
    effectiveness and on coordination of their activities               separately under tariff subheadings 6108 21 00 and
    between themselves and with the operations of the                   6212 10 00.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 55/15
2. On a proper construction of the Combined                         The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not
     Nomenclature, as established by Annex I to                     yet adopted the appropriate measures to incorporate the
     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 of                      directives at issue fully into the Greek legal order.
     10 August 1993 amending Annex I to Council
     Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and                  (1) OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 15.
     statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs             (2) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14.
     Tariff, such goods are to be classified under the              (3) OJ L 315, 8.12.1994, p. 18.
     heading which occurs last in numerical order, namely           (4) OJ L 26, 31.1.1977, p. 67.
     subheading 6212 10 00.
(1) OJ C 145, 18.5.1996.
                                                                    Action brought on 19 November 1997 by Glasoltherm
                                                                    Sarl against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
Action brought on 11 November 1997 by the Commission                                        (Case C-399/97)
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                           Republic                                                           (98/C 55/28)
                       (Case C-385/97)
                         (98/C 55/27)                               An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                    the European Communities on 19 November 1997 by
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                 Glasoltherm Sarl, represented by Mr Penciolelli, lawyer, of
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities             18 Avenue de la LibeÂration, 91130 Ris Orangis (France).
on 11 November 1997 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service          Glasoltherm Sarl claims that the Court should:
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                     Ð order the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        to support by all means, including the provision of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             financial assistance, over a period of 10 years from the
                                                                        date of entry into industrial service of the two
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt within the time-limit               demonstration operations referred to, the action taken
     laid down the laws, regulations and administrative                 by a commercial company formed by Glasoltherm Sarl
     provisions necessary in order to comply with:                      to market Glasoltherm thermoelectric micro-heating
                                                                        technology in the European Community,
     Ð Council Directive 93/118/EC (1) of 22 December
         1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC (2) on the               Ð order the Commission of the European Communities
         financing of health inspections and controls of                to pay the costs.
         fresh meat and poultrymeat, and
     Ð Commission Directive 94/59/EC (3) of 2 December              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         1994 amending for the third time the Annexes
         to Council Directive 77/96/EEC (4) on the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
         examination for trichinae (trichinella spiralis) upon      Case C-388/96 (1).
         importation from third countries of fresh meat
         derived from domestic swine,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 40, 8.2.1997, p. 11.
                                                                        OJ C 295, 27.9.1997, p. 9.
         the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
         obligations under the Treaty and those Directives,
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Action brought on 4 December 1997 by the Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,                                    Netherlands
directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State to which they are addressed.                                         (Case C-408/97)
Under the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty,                                         (98/C 55/29)
Member States are to take all appropriate measures,
whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the
obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from             An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was
actions taken by the institutions of the Community.                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  6 December 2005  in Case C-461/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven Gaston Schul Douane-expediteur BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Article 234 EC — Obligation on a national court to seek a preliminary ruling — Invalidity of a provision of Community law — Sugar — Additional import duty — Regulation (EC) No 1423/95 — Article 4)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 6 December 2005
   in Case C-461/03: reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven Gaston Schul Douane-expediteur BV v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (1)

   (Article 234 EC - Obligation on a national court to seek a preliminary ruling - Invalidity of a provision of Community law - Sugar - Additional import duty - Regulation (EC) No 1423/95 - Article 4)
   (2006/C 36/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-461/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 24 October 2003, received at the Court on 4 November 2003, in the proceedings between Gaston Schul Douane-expediteur BV and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and J. Malenovský, Presidents of Chambers, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet and M. Ilešič, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The third paragraph of Article 234 EC requires a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law to seek a ruling from the Court of Justice on a question relating to the validity of the provisions of a regulation even where the Court has already declared invalid analogous provisions of another comparable regulation;

               2.

               Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/95 of 23 June 1995 laying down detailed implementing rules for the import of products in the sugar sector other than molasses are invalid inasmuch as they provide that the additional duty referred to therein is, as a general rule, established on the basis of the representative price referred to in Article 1(2) of that regulation and that that duty is established on the basis of the cif import price of the shipment concerned only if the importer so requests.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.01.2004.


title: Case T-168/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2006 — L & D v OHIM — Sämann (Aire Limpio) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier figurative marks representing a fir tree including, in certain cases, verbal elements — Application for figurative mark containing the verbal element Aire Limpio — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 September 2006 — L & D v OHIM — Sämann (Aire Limpio)
   (Case T-168/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier figurative marks representing a fir tree including, in certain cases, verbal elements - Application for figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Aire Limpio’ - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 281/52)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: L & D, SA (Huercal de Almeria, Spain) (represented by: initially, M. Knospe, and, subsequently, S. Miralles Miravet and A. Castedo Garcia, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. García Murillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Julius Sämann Ltd (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Castán Pérez Gómez and E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for partial annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 March 2004 (Case R 326/2003-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Julius Sämann Ltd and L & D, SA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case T-302/06: Action brought on 6 November 2006 — Hartmann v OHIM (E)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/27

         Action brought on 6 November 2006 — Hartmann v OHIM (E)
   (Case T-302/06)
   (2006/C 310/51)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Paul Hartmann Aktiengesellschaft (Heidenheim, Germany) (represented by K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the contested decision

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘E’ for goods in Classes 5, 10 and 25 — Application No 4 316 949

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.