title: Case C-560/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Europa Way Srl, Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Telecommunication services — Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC — Allocation of the rights to use digital terrestrial broadcasting radio frequencies for radio and television — Annulment of a free of charge on-going selection procedure (‘beauty contest’) and substitution of a fee-based auction for that procedure — Intervention of the national legislature — Independence of the national regulatory authorities — Prior consultation — Award criteria — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Europa Way Srl, Persidera SpA v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze
   (Case C-560/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Telecommunication services - Directives 2002/20/EC, 2002/21/EC and 2002/77/EC - Allocation of the rights to use digital terrestrial broadcasting radio frequencies for radio and television - Annulment of a free of charge on-going selection procedure (‘beauty contest’) and substitution of a fee-based auction for that procedure - Intervention of the national legislature - Independence of the national regulatory authorities - Prior consultation - Award criteria - Legitimate expectations))
   (2017/C 309/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Europa Way Srl, Persidera SpA

      Defendants: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze

      Intervening parties: Elettronica Industriale SpA, Cairo Network Srl, Tivuitalia SpA, Radiotelevisione italiana SpA (RAI), Sky Italia Srl

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(3a) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, must be interpreted as precluding the annulment, by a national legislature, of an on-going selection procedure for the allocation of radio frequencies conducted by the competent national regulatory authority in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings which was suspended by ministerial order.

               2.

               Article 9 of Directive 2002/21, as amended by Directive 2009/140, Articles 3, 5 and 7 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), as amended by Directive 2009/140, and Articles 2 and 4 of Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in the markets for electronic communications networks and services, must be interpreted as not precluding a selection procedure for the allocation of radio frequencies free of charge, which was commenced in order to remedy the unlawful exclusion of certain operators from the market, from being replaced by a fees-based procedure initiated under an amended Radio Frequency Allocation Plan subsequent to a reduction in their number, provided that the new selection procedure is based on objective, transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria and that it is in line with the objectives laid down in Article 8(2) to (4) of Directive 2002/21, as amended. It is for the referring court to ascertain, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case, whether the conditions set out in the fee-based selection procedure are such as to allow an actual entry of new entrants into the digital television market without unduly favouring analogue or digital incumbents.

               3.

               The principle of legitimate expectations must be interpreted as not precluding the annulment of a selection procedure for the allocation of radio frequencies on the sole ground that operators, such as the applicants in the main proceedings, had been invited to tender and, as the only tenderers, would have been granted rights to use digital terrestrial broadcasting frequencies for radio and television had the procedure not been annulled.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case F-14/16: Action brought on 14 March 2016 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/22

         Action brought on 14 March 2016 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-14/16)
   (2016/C 165/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Tymen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff for auxiliary tasks and for damages in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 28 May 2015 refusing to renew his contract;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the implied decision of 31 May 2015 refusing to renew his contract;

               —

               so far as necessary, annul the decision of 7 December 2015 rejecting his complaint;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages, fixed on equitable principles at EUR 115 000, by way of compensation for the non-material harm he has suffered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case T-252/12: Order of the General Court of 4 February 2015 — Gretsch-Unitas and Gretsch-Unitas Baubeschläge v Commission

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/39

      Order of the General Court of 4 February 2015 — Gretsch-Unitas and Gretsch-Unitas Baubeschläge v Commission
      (Case T-252/12) (1)

      (2015/C 107/51)
      Language of the case: German
      The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case C-395/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de Trento — Sezione Civile by order of that court of 20 October 2000 in the case of Distillerie F.lli Cipriani SpA against Ministero delle Finanze

text:
C 372/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       23.12.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der                    Is it compatible with Article 4 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC
Nederlanden by judgment of 18 October 2000 in the case                     concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (1) to subject
of F. W. L. de Groot v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst                   to capital duty the grant of an interest-free loan by a
         Particulieren/Ondernemingen te Haarlem                            shareholder to his company, if at the time of granting the loan
                                                                           there existed a profit and loss transfer agreement between the
                         (Case C-385/00)                                   company and the shareholder?
                         (2000/C 372/10)                                   (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 18 Octo-
ber 2000, received at the Court Registry on 20 October 2000,
in the case of F. W. L. de Groot v Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen te Haarlem (Tax
Inspector for Individuals and Undertakings, Haarlem) on the
following questions:                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale de
                                                                           Trento — Sezione Civile by order of that court of
1.   Do Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                 20 October 2000 in the case of Distillerie F.lli Cipriani
     Article 39 EC) and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC)                                    SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
     No 1612/68 (1) of the Council preclude a system for the
     avoidance of double taxation under which a resident of a                                        (Case C-395/00)
     Member State, who in a given year (also) derives income
     in another Member State from an employment exercised
     there, on which he is taxed in that other Member State                                          (2000/C 372/12)
     without account being taken of that employee’s personal
     and family circumstances, loses in his State of residence a           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     proportional part of the advantage of his tax-free allow-             European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Trento —
     ance and personal tax concessions?                                    Sezione Civile (District Court, Trento — Civil Section) of
                                                                           20 October 2000, received at the Court Registry on 26 October
2.   If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, do specific             2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Distillerie. F.lli
     requirements then arise from Community law with                       Cipriani SpA against Ministero delle Finanze (Ministry of
     regard to the manner in which the personal and family                 Finance) on the following questions:
     circumstances of the employee concerned must be taken
     into account in his State of residence?                               1.     Where products destined for export via one or more
                                                                                Member States are moved under the suspension arrange-
(1) OJ English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                                 ment defined in Article 4(c) of Council Directive
                                                                                92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 (1) but fail to reach their
                                                                                destination, and it is impossible to ascertain where the
                                                                                irregularity occurred or where the offence took place, is
                                                                                Article 20(3) of that directive to be interpreted as meaning
                                                                                that the Member State of departure may collect the excise
                                                                                duties only if the party that has guaranteed payment has
                                                                                been promptly put in a position to ascertain that there
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-                             has been no discharge from the suspension arrangement,
nanzhof by order of that court of 9 August 2000 in                                in such a way as to enable that party to provide, within
the case of Finanzamt Hannover-Nord v Norddeutsche                                the four-month period following the date of dispatch of
Gesellschaft zur Beratung und Durchführung von Entsor-                            the products, satisfactory evidence of the correctness of
         gungsaufgaben bei Kernkraftwerken mbH                                    the operation or of the place where the irregularity in fact
                                                                                occurred or where the offence was in fact committed?
                         (Case C-392/00)
                                                                           2.     In the event that Question 1 is answered in the affirmative,
                                                                                does the same interpretation also hold good, in the same
                         (2000/C 372/11)                                          circumstances, where the Member State of departure is
                                                                                also the Member State where the offence was committed
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            or where the irregularity occurred, or, in such a case, does
European Communities by an order of the Bundesfinanzhof                           the presumption set out in Article 20(2) of Directive
(Federal Finance Court), Germany, of 9 August 2000, which                         92/12/EEC apply? If that presumption applies, may
was received at the Court Registry on 25 October 2000, for a                      evidence be furnished of the correctness of the operation
preliminary ruling in the case of Finanzamt Hannover-Nord v                       or of the place where the irregularity in fact occurred or
Norddeutsche Gesellschaft zur Beratung und Durchführung                           where the offence was in fact committed, and is such
von Entsorgungsaufgaben bei Kernkraftwerken mbH on the                            evidence subject to the time-limit laid down in
following question:                                                               Article 20(3)?
 ---pagebreak--- 23.12.2000            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 372/7
3.   In the event that Question 1 is answered in the negative,          2.     May the expression ‘pre-arranged’ which appears in the
     is Article 20(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC to be interpreted,                directive be interpreted as referring to the moment when
     in the same circumstances, as meaning that a party that                   the contract is entered into between the agency and the
     has guaranteed payment of excise duty and has not been                    customer?
     promptly put in a position to ascertain that there has
     been no discharge from the suspension arrangement is
     entitled to furnish evidence of the correctness of the             (1) Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel,
     operation or of the place where the irregularity in fact                package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59).
     occurred or where the offence was in fact committed
     even after the expiry of the four-month period following
     the date of dispatch of the products?
(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Employment
                                                                        Tribunal, Stratford (United Kingdom), by order of that
                                                                        court of 10 October 2000, in the case of Mrs F. Harding
                                                                                against Skandia Asset Management Ltd
                                                                                (Case C-402/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/14)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Employment
                                                                        Tribunal, Stratford (United Kingdom) of 10 October 2000,
                                                                        which was received at the Court Registry on 31 October 2000,
                                                                        for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mrs F. Harding against
                                                                        Skandia Asset Management Ltd, on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 8a Vara Cı́vel
da Comarca do Porto, 3a Secção, by order of that court of
31 October 2000 in the case of Club-Tour, Viagens e                     Is Article 141 of the EC Treaty directly applicable so that it
Turismo, SA, against Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves                      can be relied upon by an applicant in national proceedings to
         Garrido; intervener: Club Med Viagens Lda                      disapply such territorial limitation as is contained in sec-
                                                                        tion 1(6) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 to enable her to compare
                                                                        her pay with that of men employed by an employer associated
                                                                        with her employer at an establishment in another member
                        (Case C-400/00)                                 State who are performing equal work or work of equal value?
                        (2000/C 372/13)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber
European Communities by order of the 8a Vara Cı́vel da                  of the Consiglio di Stato, sitting in its judicial capacity, by
Comarca do Porto, 3a Secção (8th Civil District of the Oporto          order of that court of 14 July 2000 in the case of
Local Court, Third Chamber), of 31 October 2000, which was              Coopsette Scrl, on the one hand, and ANAS and Impresa
received at the Court Registry on 3 November 2000, for a                            Mambrini Costruzioni srl, on the other
preliminary ruling in the case of Club-Tour, Viagens e Turismo,
SA, against Alberto Carlos Lobo Gonçalves Garrido; intervener:                                    (Case C-405/00)
Club Med Viagens Lda on the following questions:
                                                                                (2000/C 372/15)
1.   Does a package organised by the agency, at the request
     and on the initiative of the consumer or a strictly defined        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     group of consumers in accordance with their wishes,                European Communities by order of 14 July 2000 of the Fourth
     including transport and accommodation through a tour-              Chamber of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State), sitting in
     ism undertaking, at an inclusive price, for a period of            its judicial capacity, received at the Court Registry on 6 Novem-
     more than twenty-four hours or including overnight                 ber 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Coopsette
     accommodation, fall within the scope of the concept of             Scrl, on the one hand, and ANAS and Impresa Mambrini
     ‘package travel’ as defined in Article 2(1) (1)?                   Costruzioni srl, on the other, on the following questions:


title: Case F-65/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014  — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/26

         Action brought on 14 July 2014 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-65/14)
   2014/C 380/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

      Defendant: EEAS

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions to refuse to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise even though he was included in the list of officials eligible for promotion.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of 9 October and of 14 October 2013 refusing to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2013 promotion exercise;

               —

               If necessary, annul the decision of 16 April 2014, rejecting the applicant’s complaint;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay all the costs.


title: Case T-199/02: Action brought on 24 June 2002 by Michel Van Beek against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 202/36              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.8.2002
—     convert the period between 8 and 31 July 2000 into sick            Decision of the Exam-         refusal of the application
      leave;                                                             iner:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              Decision of the Board of      rejection of the appeal
                                                                         Appeal:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Grounds of claim:             Violation of article 7(1) (b) of
                                                                                Regulation 40/94 (1). The appli-
                                                                                cant claims the mark is distinctive.
When the applicant submitted a medical certificate attesting
that she was unable to work for one month, she pointed out
to the Commission that she wished to use that certificate to             (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
justify one week’s sick leave and asked that the remainder be                Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
regarded as annual leave. The applicant subsequently asked
that the whole of the period be regarded as annual leave and
not set against her annual leave allowance.
In support of her application, the applicant alleges infringe-
ment of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations, erroneous assess-
ment of the facts, misuse of powers, failure to provide reasons          Action brought on 24 June 2002 by Michel Van Beek
and breach of the rights of the defence as well as breach of the             against Commission of the European Communities
principles of sound administration and of the duty to have
regard to the welfare of officials.
                                                                                (Case T-199/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 202/60)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 21 June 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                             Market                                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                        (Case T-192/02)                                  European Communities on 24 June 2002 by Michel Van Beek,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, represented by Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël
                        (2002/C 202/59)                                  Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.
                  (Language of the case: English)                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the Commission not to promote
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 him to Grade A 4 in the 2001 promotions procedure;
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 June 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC,                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
represented by Graham Farrington, Solicitor,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
—     annul the decision of the defendant’s Third Board of
      Appeal of 10 April 2002;                                           The applicant in the present action, an official in Grade A 5,
                                                                         challenges the appointing authority’s refusal to promote him
—     order the defendant to remit the application to its                to Grade A 4 in the 2001 promotions procedure.
      Examination Division for re-examination of Community
      Trade Mark number 1299833.
                                                                         In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     breach of the duty to state reasons;
                                                                         —     infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and
The Community trade           The figurative mark with trade                   breach of the principle of equal treatment, of the principle
mark concerned:               mark        application      number              that officials should have reasonable career prospects
                              1299833.                                         and of the principles of good management and sound
                                                                               administration.
Goods and services:           Certain goods classified in class 5:
                              pharmaceuticals in the nature of
                              anti-inflammatory analgesics.


title: Case T-409/14: Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Marcuccio v European Union (Action for damages — Applicant having ceased to respond to the requests from the General Court — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/22

         Order of the General Court of 22 June 2016 — Marcuccio v European Union
   (Case T-409/14) (1)

   ((Action for damages - Applicant having ceased to respond to the requests from the General Court - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 287/27)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union (represented by: initially A. Placco, then J. Inghelram, P. Giusta and L. Tonini Alabiso, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking to obtain compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the duration of the proceedings in Cases T-236/02, C-59/06 P and C-617/11 P.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs relating to the plea of inadmissibility giving rise to the order of 9 January 2015 in Marcuccio v European Union (T-409/14, not published, EU:T:2015:18).

               3.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and those incurred by the Court of Justice of the European Union as to the remainder.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case T-290/10: Action brought on 30 June 2010 — Sports Warehouse/HABM (TENNIS WAREHOUSE)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/50

         Action brought on 30 June 2010 — Sports Warehouse/HABM (TENNIS WAREHOUSE)
   (Case T-290/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/89
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sports Warehouse GmbH (Schutterwald, Germany) (represented by: M. Douglas, Rechtsanwalt)

      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 21 April 2010 in Case R 1259/2009-1;

               —

               Register the Community trade mark 7536899 ‘TENNIS WAREHOUSE’

               —

               Order the Office to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘TENNIS WAREHOUSE’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 28 and 35

      Decision of the examiner: Registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1) (b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) on the ground that the mark was not descriptive in character and that the concept of the need for reservation was ignored; infringement of the duty to state reasons under Article 75 of Regulation (EC) 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: Joined Cases T-241/05, T-262/05 to T-264/05, T-346/05, T-347/05, T-29/06 to T-31/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2007 — The Procter & Gamble Company v OHIM (Community trade mark — Applications for three-dimensional trade marks — Square white tablets with coloured floral design — Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Absence of distinctive character)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 May 2007 — The Procter & Gamble Company v OHIM
   (Joined Cases T-241/05, T-262/05 to T-264/05, T-346/05, T-347/05, T-29/06 to T-31/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Applications for three-dimensional trade marks - Square white tablets with coloured floral design - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Absence of distinctive character)
   (2007/C 155/45)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, Ohio, USA) (represented by: G.Kuipers, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (represented by: D. Schennen, then G. Schneider, Agents)
   Re:
   Nine Actions against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 April 2005 (case R 843/2004-1), of 3 May 2005 (Case R 845/2004-1), of 4 May 2005 (Case R 849/2004-1), of 1 June 2005 (Case R 1184/2004-1), of 6 July 2005 (Cases R 1188/2004-1 and R 1182/2004-1), of 16 November 2005 (Case R 1183/2004-1), of 21 November 2005 (Case R 1072/2004-1) and of 22 November 2005 (Case R 1071/2004-1) concerning the application to register three-dimensional trade marks.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.


title: Case T-425/11: Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014  — Greece v Commission (State aid — Greek casinos — System providing for a levy of 80 % of the admissions of different amounts — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market — Concept of State aid — Advantage)

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/5

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 September 2014 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-425/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Greek casinos - System providing for a levy of 80 % of the admissions of different amounts - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market - Concept of State aid - Advantage))
   2014/C 380/06
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: P. Mylonopoulos and K. Boskovits, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, H. van Vliet and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011, on State aid to certain Greek casinos C–16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the Hellenic Republic (OJ 2011 L 285, p. 25).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               annuls Commission Decision 2011/716/EU of 24 May 2011, on State aid to certain Greek casinos C–16/10 (ex NN 22/10, ex CP 318/09) implemented by the Hellenic Republic;

               2.

               orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 September 1999 in Case C-27/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): Metalmeccanica Fracasso SpA, Leitschutz Handels- und Montage GmbH v Amt der Salzburger Landesregierung für den Bundesminister für wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten (Public works contract - Contract awarded to sole tenderer judged to be suitable)

text:
18.12.1999              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 366/5
1. Articles 4(2) and 2(1) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of                    or particular measures necessary to ensure that projects are
   27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public              examined in order to determine whether they are likely to have
   and private projects on the environment are to be interpreted as             significant effects on the environment and, if so, to ensure that
   not conferring on a Member State the power either to exclude,                they are subject to an impact assessment.
   from the outset and in their entirety, from the environmental
   impact assessment procedure established by the Directive certain
   classes of projects falling within Annex II to the Directive,            (1) OJ No C 72 of 7.3.1998.
   including modifications to those projects, or to exempt from such
   a procedure a specific project, such as the project of restructuring
   an airport with a runway shorter than 2 100 metres, either
   under national legislation or on the basis of an individual
   examination of that project, unless those classes of projects in
   their entirety or the specific project could be regarded, on the
   basis of a comprehensive assessment, as not being likely to have
   significant effects on the environment. It is for the national court
   to review whether, on the basis of the individual examination
   carried out by the national authorities which resulted in the                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   exclusion of the specific project at issue from the assessment
   procedure established by the Directive, those authorities correctly
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
   assessed, in accordance with the Directive, the significance of the
   effects of that project on the environment.
                                                                                of 16 September 1999
2. In the case of a project requiring assessment under Directive            in Case C-27/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
   85/337, Articles 2(1) and (2) thereof are to be interpreted as           the Bundesvergabeamt): Metalmeccanica Fracasso SpA,
   allowing a Member State to use an assessment procedure other             Leitschutz Handels- und Montage GmbH v Amt der
   than the procedure introduced by the Directive where that                Salzburger Landesregierung für den Bundesminister für
   alternative procedure is incorporated in a national procedure                          wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten (1)
   which exists or is to be established within the meaning of
   Article 2(2) of the Directive. However, an alternative procedure
   of that kind must satisfy the requirements of Article 3 and              (Public works contract — Contract awarded to sole tenderer
   Articles 5 to 10 of the Directive, including public participation                                judged to be suitable)
   as provided for in Article 6.
                                                                                (1999/C 366/08)
3. Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337 is to be interpreted as not
   applying to a project, such as that at issue in the main
   proceedings, which, while provided for by a legislative provision                            (Language of the case: German)
   setting out a programme, has received development consent under
   a separate administrative procedure. The requirements which such
   a provision and the process under which it has been adopted              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
   must satisfy in order that the objectives of the Directive, including                        in the European Court Reports)
   that of supplying information, can be regarded as achieved
   consist in the adoption of the project by a specific legislative act
   which includes all the elements which may be relevant to the             In Case C-27/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
   assessment of the impact of the project on the environment.              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesverga-
                                                                            beamt, Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                            pending before that court between Metalmeccanica Fracasso
                                                                            SpA, Leitschutz Handels- und Montage GmbH and Amt
4. Article 1(4) of Directive 85/337 is to be interpreted as meaning         der Salzburger Landesregierung für den Bundesminister für
   that an airport which may simultaneously serve both civil and            wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten — on the interpretation of
   military purposes, but whose main use is commercial, falls within        Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
   the scope of the Directive.                                              coordination of procedures for the award of public works
                                                                            contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), as amended by European
                                                                            Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October
5. Articles 4(2) and 2(1) of Directive 85/337 are to be interpreted         1997 amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and
   as meaning that, where the discretion conferred by those                 93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the
   provisions has been exceeded by the legislative or administrative        award of public service contracts, public supply contracts and
   authorities of a Member State, individuals may rely on those             public works contracts respectively (OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1) the
   provisions before a court of that Member State against the               Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rappor-
   national authorities and thus obtain from the latter the setting         teur), President of the Chamber, J.L. Murray and H. Ragne-
   aside of the national rules or measures incompatible with those          malm, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rül, Principal
   provisions. In such a case, it is for the authorities of the Member      Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
   State to take, according to their relevant powers, all the general       16 September 1999, in which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 366/6                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       18.12.1999
1. Article 18(1) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993            implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
    concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public      and women as regards access to employment, vocational
    works contracts, as amended by European Parliament and                 training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976
    Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending                 L 39, p. 40) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
    Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and 93/37/EEC concerning               J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J.C. Moitin-
    the coordination of procedures for the award of public service         ho de Almeida (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and D.A.O. Edward,
    contracts, public supply contracts and public works contracts          Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
    respectively must be interpreted as meaning that the contracting       given a judgment on 16 September 1999, in which it has
    authority is not required to award the contract to the only            ruled:
    tenderer judged to be suitable.
                                                                           The principle of equal pay laid down in Article 119 of the EC Treaty
2. Article 18(1) of Directive 93/37, as amended by Directive               (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by
    97/52, can be relied on by an individual before the national           Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) does not preclude the making of a
    courts.                                                                lump-sum payment exclusively to female workers who take maternity
                                                                           leave where that payment is designed to offset the occupational
(1) OJ No C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                               disadvantages which arise for those workers as a result of their being
                                                                           away from work.
                                                                           (1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 16 September 1999
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-218/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil de Prud’hommes du Havre): Oumar Dabo                                                  of 21 September 1999
Abdoulaye and Others v Régie Nationale des Usines
                           Renault SA (1)                                  in Case C-392/96: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland (1)
(Interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117
to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136                 (Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of
EC to 143 EC) and of Directives 75/117/EEC and                             the effects of certain public or private projects — Setting of
76/207/EEC — Collective agreement providing for an allow-                                                thresholds)
     ance for pregnant women going on maternity leave)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/10)
                          (1999/C 366/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     In Case C-392/96: Commission of the European Communities
                   in the European Court Reports)                          (Agent: Richard B. Wainwright) v Ireland (Agent: Michael
                                                                           A. Buckley, assisted by Philip O’Sullivan and Niamh Hyland)
In Case C-281/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt all the
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil de                     necessary measures to ensure the correct transposition of
Prud’hommes du Havre, France, for a preliminary ruling in the              Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assess-
proceedings pending before that court between Oumar Dabo                   ment of the effects of certain public and private projects on
Abdoulaye and Others and Régie Nationale des Usines Renault                the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), Ireland has failed to
SA — on the interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty                 fulfil its obligations under that directive, in particular Article 12
(Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by                thereof, and under the EC Treaty — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), of Council Directive 75/117/EEC                composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the                J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward and
Member States relating to the application of the principle of              L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19) and of                   L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the                     judgment on 21 September 1999, in which it:


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2004 in Case T-399/02: Eurocermex SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional trade mark — Form of a bottle — Long-neck bottle in the neck of which a slice of lemon has been plugged — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/39

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 29 April 2004
   in Case T-399/02: Eurocermex SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Three-dimensional trade mark - Form of a bottle - Long-neck bottle in the neck of which a slice of lemon has been plugged - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2004/C 118/83)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-399/02: Eurocermex SA, established in Evere (Belgium), represented by A. Bertrand and T. Reisch, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), (Agents: S. Laitinen and A. Rassat) – application brought for the annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 October 2002 (Case R 188/2002-1) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional trade mark (long-neck bottle in the neck of which a slice of lemon has been plugged) as a Community trade mark – the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.


title: Case T-526/08 P: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Commission v Strack (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Recruitment — Vacancy notice — Rejection of candidature — Appointment to a post of head of unit — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Action for damages — Non-material damage)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Commission v Strack
   (Case T-526/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Recruitment - Vacancy notice - Rejection of candidature - Appointment to a post of head of unit - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Action for damages - Non-material damage)
   2011/C 30/64
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kramer and B. Eggers, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 25 September 2008 in Case F-44/05 Strack v Commission (not published in the ECR) seeking to have that judgment set aside in part.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the operative part of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 25 September 2008 in Case F-44/05 Strack v Commission.

               2.

               Dismisses the cross-appeal as to the remainder.

               3.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal for a ruling on the claims for annulment of the decision to appoint Mr A. to the post of head of the ‘Calls for tenders and contracts’ unit of the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities and the decision to reject Mr Guido Strack’s candidature for that post, on the claims for compensation for the non-material damage purportedly suffered by Mr Strack in the sum of EUR 200, and on costs.

               4.

               Costs reserved.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-136/06: Action brought on  10 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/30

         Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-136/06)
   (2006/C 131/54)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the following Directives of the European Parliament and of the Council, namely, 2002/96/EC on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (1) and 2003/108/EC of 8 December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (2), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directives had to be transposed expired on 13 August 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 37, 13.02.2003, p. 24

      (2)  OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 106


title: Case C-139/99: Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
3.7.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 188/17
Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser,               (2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                 The Commission considers that Ireland’s legislation, by
the Court should:                                                      imposing excise duty on carriers in respect of every passenger
                                                                       ticket on services from Ireland to other Member States (with
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and        the exception of flights to Northern Ireland) and not upon
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply               flights within Ireland (and to Northern Ireland), is incompatable
    with Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994                with the principle of freedom to provide services as stated in
    establishing the fundamental principles governing the              Articles 59 and 62 of the Treaty and in the rules laid down in
    investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents (1),       Article 3(1) of Regulation 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access
    the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its             for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.
    obligations under that directive;
                                                                       With regard to Ireland’s contention that there is no infringe-
(2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.              ment of Regulation 2408/92 because the excise duty is
                                                                       non-discriminatory on grounds of nationality, the Commission
                                                                       is of the view that the principles governing the freedom to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        provide services go beyond the mere prohibition of any
                                                                       discrimination on grounds of nationality. Even if national
                                                                       measures restricting that freedom apply without distinction to
Article 12 of the abovementioned directive provides that the           national providers of services and to those of other Member
Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations            States, they are still unacceptable if they are not warranted by
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the             mandatory requirements in the public interest, or if the
directive not later than 21 November 1996, and that they are           same result can be obtained by less restrictive rules (the
to inform the Commission thereof.                                      proportionality principle).
Although the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg indicated, in its               (1) OJ L 240, 24.08.1992, p. 8.
response to the formal notice and to the reasoned opinion,
that the necessary measures were in the course of preparation,
the Commission has not to date received any information
regarding the adoption of those measures.
(1) OJ L 319 of 12.12.1994, p. 14.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
                                                                       Beroep te Gent by judgment of that court of 13 April
                                                                       1999 in the case of NV Algemene Maatschappij van
                                                                       Verzekeringen en Grondkrediet, now known as NV
                                                                       Algemene Maatschappij voor Investering en Dienstverl-
                                                                                ening (AMID), against the Belgian State
Action brought on 19 April 1999 by the Commission of                                            (Case C-141/99)
         the European Communities against Ireland
                                                                                (1999/C 188/40)
                        (Case C-139/99)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                        (1999/C 188/39)                                European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Beroep te
                                                                       Gent (Ghent Court of Appeal) of 13 April 1999, received at
                                                                       the Court Registry on 21 April 1999, for a preliminary ruling
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of              in the case of NV Algemene Maatschappij van Verzekeringen
Justice of the European Communities on 19 April 1999 by the            en Grondkrediet, now known as NV Algemene Maatschappij
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                 voor Investering en Dienstverlening (AMID), against the
Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address          Belgian State, on the following question:
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre            Does Article 52 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing
Wagner.                                                                the European Community preclude the application of national
                                                                       legislation of a Member State under which, for the purposes of
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                            assessment to corporation tax, a business loss incurred in that
                                                                       Member State during an earlier taxable period by a company
(1) declare that by providing in Section 65 of the Finance Act         established in that State can be offset against the profits made
    1982 (as amended) that flights from Ireland to other               by that company during a later taxable period only to the
    Member States (with the exception of Northern Ireland)             extent to which that loss cannot be attributed to the profit
    are subject to a higher tax rate than flights within Ireland,      made by a permanent establishment of that company in
    Ireland has failed to comply with Article 3(1) of Council          another Member State during that earlier taxable period, with
    Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1);                                   the result that the loss thus attributed cannot be offset, in


title: Reference for preliminary rulings by order of the Pretura Circondariale di Avezzano of 16 October 1995 in the proceedings pending before that court between Gianni Bettati and Safety Hi-Tech srl (Case C-341/95)

text:
No C 351 /6                 EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   30 . 12 . 95
Question 4 — Severance                                                  ( iv ) an agreement whereby the parties fix prices for both
                                                                                the sea and land legs of a door-to-door ( multi-modal )
                                                                                service .
4.1 .         Upon a proper interpretation of Article 85 ( 2 ) of the
EC Treaty does the test of severance entail the separation of
clauses which are capable of falling within Article 85 ( 1 )            Question 6 — Arbitral awards
from those in an agreement which are not so capable ( as was
submitted by the respondents during the arbitration and
before the national court ). Alternatively, does it involve the         6.1 .     Is an award given by arbitrators pursuant to an
separation of clauses which are prohibited by Article 85 ( 1 )          arbitration clause in a private agreement an 'agreement '
from those which are not so prohibited , for example because            within the meaning of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty ?
the clause is exempted pursuant to a block exemption, such
as Article 3 of Council Regulation ( EEC )' No 4056/86 ( as             6.2 .     If the answer to the above is yes, does an
was contended for by the Claimants in the arbitration and               award/agreement which leads to the enforcement of clauses
before the national court ).                                            of an agreement which prima facie ( and subject to the
                                                                        operation of any applicable block exemption ) breach
                                                                        Article 85 ( 1 ), itself breach Article 85 ( 1 )?
4.2 .         In relation to an agreement which falls in part within
the scope of Article 3 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                        6.3 .     What is the effect of such an award in EC law ? Is the
No 4056/86 , upon a proper construction of Article 85 ( 3 )
and/or Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86 , does the                 answer affected by the fact that, other than for the
inclusion in the agreement of a clause or term falling within           enforcement proceedings, the agreement to which the award
Article 85(1 ) which does not fall within any one or more of            relates has expired ?
the categories of restrictions set out in Article 3 of the
aforesaid Regulation mean that the entire agreement falls               6.4 .     In what respects ( if any ) are the Commission 's
within Article 85 ( 1 ) and ( 2 )? Alternatively, does it mean          powers in relation to an arbitration award notified to it
that the non-exempt restrictions may ( if permitted by the              under Article 5 ( 5 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86
appropriate test of severance ) be severed from the                     relevant to any decision of a national court in relation
agreement to leave a residual agreement which is valid and              to :
enforceable by virtue of Article 3 of Council Regulation
( EEC ) No 4056/86 ? In particular ( but not exhaustively )             ( a ) the determination of any appeal against that award ;
does the inclusion of the following clauses render Article 3                   and/or
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4056/86 inapplicable to an
agreement such as is described above in its entirety :                  ( b ) the enforcement of the award.
  ( i ) price fixing on the inland leg of a multi-modal transport       (') OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 4 .
          service; and/or                                               ( 2 ) OJ No L 175 , 23 . 7 . 1968 , p . 1 .
                                                                        ( 3 ) OJ No 13 , 21 . 2 . 1962 , p . 204/62 .
( ii ) a post termination clause such as that contained in
          Clause 11 of the Sunag agreement.
Question 5 — Legality of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC)
No 4056/86
5.1 .         Is   Article   3   of Council   Regulation       ( EEC )  Reference for preliminary rulings by order of the Pretura
No 4056/86 valid or is it ultra vires Article 85 ( 3 ) and              Circondariale di Avezzano of 16 October 1995 in the
thereby invalid to the extent that, properly construed, it              proceedings pending before that court between Gianni
grants exemption to :                                                                     Bettati and Safety Hi-Tech srl
                                                                                Case C-341 /95 )
    ( i ) agreements or arrangements ( such as Sunag ) between                                       ( 95/C 351 /09 )
           lines who , simultaneously with their operation of the
           aforesaid agreement or arrangement, conclude
           associate membership agreements with outsiders who           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           were hitherto independent pursuant to which the              European Communities by order of the Pretura
           outsider is permitted to charge differential rates;          Circondariale di Avezzano ( Magistrate 's Court for the
           and/or                                                       District of Avezzano ) of 16 October 1995 , which was
                                                                        recieved at the Court Registry on 30 October 1995 , for a
  ( ii ) agreements pursuant to which the alleged conference            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
           members collectively charge differential rates to            court between Gianni Bettati and Safety Hi-Tech srl on the
           shippers of the same class of commodity; and/or              following question :
( iii ) agreements pursuant to which the only 'common '
           element of the freight rate is that the parties adopt a      'whether or not, having regard to Articles 3 , 5 , 30, 86 , 92
           common mechanism for devising tariffs to be applied          and 130r of the Treaty of Rome, Article 5 of Council
           to individual shippers; and/or                               Regulation ( EEC ) No 3093/94 of 15 December 1994 ( ] ), in
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 12 . 95           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 351 /7
so far as it unconditionally prohibits as from 1 June 1995 the               — which, since they are imposed exclusively on the
use of HCFCs in the fire-fighting sector, is valid .'                             vessel ( which is merely passively loaded and
                                                                                unloaded ), affect a subject other than those whose
(') OJ No L 333 , 22 . 12 . 1994 , p . 1 .                                        responsibility it is to carry out the necessary
                                                                                technical operations ( in this case SpA Porto Petroli
                                                                                di Genova and the laders/receivers of the product ),
                                                                                resulting in an inevitable discrepancy between the
                                                                                responsibility for any pollution and the bearing of
                                                                                the cost of the anti-pollution service,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
Genova, Sesta Sezione Civile, by order of that court of                      — which, given the nature of the product and/or its
12 October 1995 in the case of Diego Call & Figli srl v.                          existence, represent an unnecessary service for
             Servizi Ecologici Porto di Genova SpA                                vessels equipped with their own anti-pollution
                                                                                devices and systems adapted to the type of product
                         ( Case C-343/95 )
                                                                                to be loaded or unloaded,
                           ( 95/C 351 / 10
                                                                             — which impose on the vessel a charge, and an
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            associated extra cost, in addition to those provided
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di                              for by the landing contract between the carrier and
Genova, Sesta Sezione Civile ( District Court, Genoa, Sixth                       the company operating the wharves, and have no
Civil Chamber ) of 12 October 1995 , which was received at                        practical connection with the subject-matter of the
the Court Registry on 30 October 1995 , for a preliminary                         contract .
ruling in the case of Diego Call &c Figli Sri v. Servizi Ecologici
Porto di Genova SpA on the following questions :                       ( C ) If, in the situations set out in questions ( A ) and ( B ),
                                                                             there are one or more practices amounting to abuse of a
( A ) Can there be said to exist a 'dominant position within                 dominant position by an undertaking for the purposes
      the common market or in a substantial part of it' where                of Article 86 of the Treaty , does this lead to a potential
      a limited company, set up by a national port authority,                adverse effect on trade between Member States of the
      is given responsibility for and does actually carry out,               Union ?
      pursuant to an administrative concession from that
      authority, the task of providing, with exclusive rights
      within a harbour sector specializing in loading and
      unloading petroleum products, an ' anti-pollution
      protection ' service, and where that company collects
      the relevant fee, which is set unilaterally by the port
      authority on the basis of the vessel 's tonnage and the          Action brought on 7 November 1995 by the French
      quantity of the product loaded or unloaded, from users                     Republic against the European Parliament
      of that service , that is to say vessels which dock at the                               ( Case C-345/95 )
      wharves to carry out those operations ?
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 / 11 )
( B ) Having regard to the situation set out in question ( A )
      and if there is a dominant position within the common            An action against the European Parliament was brought
      market or a substantial part of it, is there an abuse of         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      the aforesaid 'dominant position' within the meaning             7 November 1995 by the French Republic, represented by
      of Article 86 of the EC Treaty, in particular of                 Marc Perrin de Brichambaut and Denys Wibaux, acting as
      subparagraphs ( a ), ( c ) and ( d ) and are there related       Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      'practices ', when an undertaking holding the exclusive          French Embassy, 9 Boulevard du Prince Henri .
      concession for a service ( even though on the basis of a
      decision of the authority granting the concession )              The applicant claims that the Court should :
      charges fees :
                                                                       — declare null and void the Decision of the European
      — which are compulsory and independent of the                         Parliament of 20 September 1995 fixing the timetable of
           provision of an efficient surveillance and/or                    work for 1996 ,
           intervention service, merely because a vessel berths
           in a mooring in the Porto Petroli and loads/unloads         — order the defendant to pay the costs .
           goods, whether petroleum products or chemicals
           and petrochemicals, according to the contractual
           terms imposed,                                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      — the amount of which depends solely on the tonnage              — breach of the Decision taken by common agreement
           of the vessel, the amount of the product and also , in           between the Representatives of the Governments of the
           the event of any actual intervention, the duration               Member States on the location of the seats of the
           thereof, but not on the product's nature, quality or             institutions and of certain bodies and departments of the
           capacity to pollute,                                             European Communities, adopted in Edinburgh on


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-93/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Indústria e Comércio Têxtil SA (ICT) v. Fazenda Pública (Anti-dumping duty - Council Regulation (EEC) No 738/92 - Free-at-frontier price - Increase in the event of deferred payment)

text:
12 . 7 . 97              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 212/5
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                       (Second Chamber)
                            of 29 May 1997                                                          of 29 May 1997
in Case C-63/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                     in Case C-93/96 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach                   from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Indústria e
                                                                                Comércio Têxtil SA (ICT) v. Fazenda Pública ( 1 )
           v. Werner Skripalle, in the presence of the
              Bundesministerium der Finanzen ( 1 )                       (Anti-dumping duty — Council Regulation (EEC) No 738/
                                                                         92 — Free-at-frontier price — Increase in the event of
(Tax provisions — Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable                                                   deferred payment)
amount — Personal relationship between the supplier and
                   the recipient of the supply)                                                       ( 97/C 212/10 )
                             ( 97/C 212/09
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            (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-93/96 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                         Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Supremo Tribunal
                                                                         Administrativo ( Supreme Administrative Court ) for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
In Case C-63/96 : reference to the Court pursuant to                     court between Industria e Comercio Textil SA ( ICT) and
 Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof                    Fazenda Publica — on the interpretation of Article 1 ( 3 )
 (Federal Finance Court) for a preliminary ruling in the                  of Council Regulation (EEC) No 738/92 of 23 March
 proceedings pending before that court between Finanzamt                  1992 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports
 Bergisch Gladbach and Werner Skripalle, in the presence                  of cotton yarn originating in Brazil and Turkey ( OJ No
 of the      Bundesministerium        der  Finanzen    —   on   the       L 82, 27. 3 . 1992 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Second Chamber),
 interpretation of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC                 composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, G.
 of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the                   Hirsch and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur), Judges; N.
 Member States relating to turnover taxes — common                        Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
 system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment                   a judgment on 29 May 1997, in which it has ruled :
 ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth
 Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ,
 President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward,                     The increase provided for in Article 1 (3) of Council
 J. -P. Puissochet and P. Jann ( Rapporteur), Judges;                     Regulation (EEC) No 738/92 of 23 March 1992 imposing
 N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; H. A. Riihl, Principal                   a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton yarn
 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                originating in Brazil and Turkey must be applied
 29 May 1997, in which it has ruled :                                     whenever it is agreed that imported goods are to be paid
                                                                          for more than 30 days after their arrival in the customs
                                                                          territory of the Community, even where the difference
                                                                          between the price for deferred payment and that for
 An authorization by the Council to introduce a special                   payment CAD is greater, in percentage terms, than the
 measure for derogation from the sixth Council Directive                  increase to be applied. That increase must be based on the
  (77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of                      price actually paid or payable for the goods when they are
  the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes                sold for export to the customs territory of the Community,
 — common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                     excluding charges for interest as consideration for the
  assessment) whereby, in order to prevent tax avoidance, in              deferred payment terms granted, provided that those terms
  the case of supplies for consideration made between                     are the subject of a 'financing arrangement ' within the
  associated persons the cost to the taxable person within                meaning of Article 3 (2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
  the meaning of Article 11 (A) (1) (c) of the sixth Directive            No 1495/80 of 11 June 1980 implementing certain
  is to be used as the minimum basis of assessment is not                 provisions of Articles 1 , 3 and 8 of Council Regulation
  covered by Article 27 of the Directive where the agreed                  (EEC) No 1224/80 on the valuation of goods for customs
  consideration represents the market rate but is less than               purposes, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)
  the minimum basis of assessment. .                                      No 220/85 of 29 January 1985, and that the level of
                                                                           charges reflects current prevailing rates.
   (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .
                                                                           (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .


title: Case C-175/04: Action brought on 13 April 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               29.5.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/4

         Action brought on 13 April 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-175/04)
   (2004/C 146/05)
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 April 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by Lourdes Fraguas Gadea, Abogado del Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 4 February 2004 (1), in so far as concerns Spain's exclusion for 'inadequate quality checks' (EUR 7314 117) in respect of aid for processors of tomatoes and for 'failure to comply with the delivery timetable' (EUR 1277 630. 65) in the case of aid to certain producers of citrus fruit.

               —

               order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission takes the view that the procedure which was carried out in relation to the quality checks for finished products does not conform to Article 15 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 504/97 of 19 March 1997, laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the system of production aid for products processed from fruit and vegetables. Therefore, the Commission proposes a flat-rate adjustment of 10 % of the total expenditure by way of aid in Spain. Nonetheless, checks are carried out annually in Spain on all undertakings throughout the marketing year. However, in accordance with the provisions in Article 15(1)(a) of Regulation 504/97, for selected undertakings, ('the sample group'), additional analytical checks are carried out for finished products which may be the subject of an application for financial assistance, which does not mean that the remainder have committed irregularities.
   Aid for certain producers of citrus fruits:
   The reason given by the Commission for the proposal for financial correction is the transfer of the agreed quantities between different delivery periods. However, in the marketing year 1997/98 there was considerably above average rainfall in Spain which gave rise, in some regions or localities, to difficulties in gathering those varieties of fruit ready for harvest and delays in ripening for later varieties. Those circumstances affected the delivery timetable mentioned in those contracts. The Spanish authorities argue that it was a case of force majeure. Moreover, in the marketing year 1997/98, there were no rules governing the transfers of quantities agreed quarterly between different delivery periods in respect of multi-annual contracts. Thus the conduct cannot be deemed to be unlawful, since in previous marketing years the transfer of agreed quantities between different delivery period had been authorised.

      (1)  Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) OJ L 40, p. 31


title: Case T-523/10: Action brought on 8 November 2010 — Interkobo v OHIM — XXXLutz Marken (mybaby)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/33

         Action brought on 8 November 2010 — Interkobo v OHIM — XXXLutz Marken (mybaby)
   (Case T-523/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Interkobo Sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Skubisz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: XXXLutz Marken GmbH (Wels, Austria)

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare invalid in its entirety the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 September 2010 in Case R 88/2009-4;

               —

               order the defendant and XXXLutz Marken GmbH 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.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: XXXLutz Marken GmbH.

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘my baby’ for goods in Class 28 — application no 4894416.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: national word mark ‘MYBABY’, national figurative mark ‘mybaby’ and international word mark ‘MYBABY’ for goods in Class 28.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: upholding of the opposition and rejection of the application for a trade mark for goods in Class 28.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection of the opposition.

      Pleas in law: breach of Rule 20(1), in conjunction with Rule 19(2)(a)(i) and (ii) and Rule 19(3), of Regulation No 2868/95 (1) and infringement of the right to seek protection of legitimate expectations.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


7.12.2002              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 305/19
        Removal from the register of Case C-124/01 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-45/02 (1)
                          (2002/C 305/36)                                                      (2002/C 305/39)
By order of 20 September 2002 the President of the Court of           By order of 10 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               of the European Communities ordered the removal from
from the register of Case C-124/01: Commission of the                 the register of Case C-45/02: Commission of the European
European Communities v Italian Republic.                              Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-150/01 ( 1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-70/02 (1)
                          (2002/C 305/37)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/40)
By order of 30 September 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal               By order of 20 September 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-150/01: Commission of the
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                      from the register of Case C-70/02: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Italian Republic.
( 1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-443/01 ( 1)
                          (2002/C 305/38)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-221/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/41)
By order of 28 August 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-443/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Vestre Landsret): Poul Nørgaard v Skatteminis-          By order of 25 September 2002 the President of the Court of
teriet.                                                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-221/02: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.
                                                                      (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.


title: Case T-268/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — PPG and SNF v ECHA (Actions for annulment — REACH — Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern — Time-limit for bringing an action — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/22

         Order of the General Court of 21 September 2011 — PPG and SNF v ECHA
   (Case T-268/10) (1)

   (Actions for annulment - REACH - Identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern - Time-limit for bringing an action - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 340/46
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) (Brussels, Belgium); and SNF SAS (Andrézieux-Bouthéon, France) (represented: initially by K. Van Maldegem, R. Cana, lawyers, and P. Sellar, Solicitor, and subsequently by K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkila and W. Broere, Agents);

      Interveners in support of the defendant: the Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. Noort et J. Langer, Agents); and the European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the ECHA identifying acrylamide (EC No 201-173-7) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1) and including acrylamide in the candidate list for eventual inclusion in Annex XIV to the Regulation, taken pursuant to Article 59 thereof.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) and SNF SAS shall bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).

               3.

               The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the European Commission shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 9.10.2010.


title: Case C-191/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 27 April 2015 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sàrl

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 27 April 2015 — Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon EU Sàrl
   (Case C-191/15)
   (2015/C 221/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verein für Konsumenteninformation

      Defendant: Amazon EU Sàrl

      Questions referred

               1.

               In an action for an injunction within the meaning of Directive 2009/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (1) must the law applicable be determined in accordance with Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (2) where the action is directed against the use of unfair contract terms by an undertaking established in a Member State that in the course of electronic commerce concludes contracts with consumers resident in other Member States, in particular, in the State of the court seised?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

                           2.1.

                           Must the country in which the damage occurs (Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation) be understood as each country towards which the commercial activities of the defendant undertaking are directed, with the result that the clauses challenged must be assessed according to the law of the court seised if the entity qualified to bring an action challenges the use of such clauses in commerce with consumers resident in that country?

                           2.2.

                           Does a manifestly closer connection (Article 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation) to the law of the country in which the defendant undertaking is established exist where that undertaking’s terms and conditions provide that the law of that country shall apply to contracts concluded by the undertaking?

                           2.3.

                           Does a choice of law clause of that kind entail on other grounds that the contractual clauses challenged must be assessed in accordance with the law of the country in which the defendant undertaking is established?

               3.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
               How then must the law applicable to the action for an injunction be determined?

               4.

               Regardless of the answers to the previous questions:

                           4.1.

                           Must a term included in general terms and conditions specifying that a contract concluded in the course of electronic commerce between a consumer and a trader established in another Member State shall be governed by the law of the country in which that trader is established be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (3)?

                           4.2.

                           Is the processing of personal data by an undertaking that in the course of electronic commerce concludes contracts with consumers resident in other Member States, in accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (4), and regardless of the law that otherwise applies, governed exclusively by the law of the Member State in which the establishment of the undertaking is situated in whose framework the processing takes place or must the undertaking also comply with the data protection rules of those Member States to which its commercial activities are directed?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 110, p. 30.

      (2)  OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40.

      (3)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (4)  OJ 1995 L 281, p. 31.