title: Case C-405/05: Action brought on  18.11.2005  by Commission against the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/11

         Action brought on 18.11.2005 by Commission against the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-405/05)
   (2006/C 48/22)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18.11.2005 by the Commission, represented by Sara Pardo Quintillan, Xavier Lewis and Hubert van Vliet, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that in failing to ensure that adequate treatment is provided for urban waste waters from the agglomerations of Bangor, Brighton, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Donaghadee, Larne, Lerwick, Londonderry, Margate, Newtonabbey, Omagh and Portrush at the latest by 31 December 2000, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 paragraphs 1 and 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC (1).

               2.

               order The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission is of the view that the failure by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to ensure adequate treatment is provided for the entirety of the waste water discharges produced in the agglomerations of Bangor, Broadstairs, Carrickfergus, Coleraine, Londonderry, Larne, Lerwick, Margate, Newtonabbey, Omagh, Brighton, Portrush, Donaghdee and Bideford/ Northam is in breach of Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 3, of the directive. Furthermore, the failure to control substantial new developments in the agglomerations of Portrush, Newtonabbey, Bangor, Londonderry and Larne or to ensure that their approval is accompanied by mitigating measures is exacerbating the breaches of the aforementioned articles of the Directive in these five agglomerations.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment OJ L 135, 30.05.1991 P. 40 - 52


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of 24 June 1997 in the case of Skatteministeriet v. Aktieselskabet Forsikringsselskabet Codan (Case C-236/97)

text:
No C 252/20             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                            16 . 8 . 97
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo                     — FF 103 286 730 eligible expenditure corresponding
Social No 4 of Madrid by order of that court of 30 May                           to intervention measures concerning the public
1997 in the case of Teresa Fernandez de Bobadilla against                         storage of cereals,
( 1 ) Museo Nacional del Prado, (2 ) Ministerio Fiscal and
          ( 3 ) Comite de Empresa del Museo del Prado                      — FF 720 720 eligible expenditure under the export
                                                                                refund system in respect of an export operation of
                         ( Case C-234/97)                                         73,5 tonnes of processed cheese for Saudi Arabia ,
                           ( 97/C 252/39 )
                                                                      — in         the  alternative,    consider    the   correction        of
                                                                            FF 103 286 730 concerning the public storage of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      cereals to be disproportionate in amount,
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo
Social No 4 ( Social Court No 4 ) of Madrid of 30 May                 — order the defendant to pay the costs.
1997, received at the Court Registry on 26 June 1997, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Teresa Fernandez de               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Bobadilla against ( 1 ) Museo Nacional del Prado, ( 2 )
Ministerio Fiscal and ( 3 ) Comite de Empresa del Museo               ( As regards expenditure in the cereal sector )
del Prado on the following question:
                                                                      — France would put forward the same pleas as it did in
                                                                            Case C-232/96 ( 2 ).
Does the provision contained in the Collective Agreement
of an Autonomous Organization of the Spanish State                    ( As regards the application of the export refund system in
which requires, for pursuit of the profession of restorer (a          respect of consignment of processed cheese exported to
non-regulated profession), prior validation of the academic           Saudi Arabia )
qualification obtained in another Community country —
such validation involving a comparison of the study                   — Breach of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 of
programmes in Spain and in the other country and the                        21 April 1970 on the financing of the common
passing of theoretical and practical tests in the subjects in               agricultural policy ( 3 ): the export operation took place
the Spanish programme of studies which do not appear in                     in accordance with the Community rules in force, in
the programme of studies of the other Community country                     particular in compliance with Articles 5 and 13 of
in question — infringe the right to freedom of movement                     Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 3665/87 of
for workers ?                                                               27 November 1987 laying down common detailed
                                                                            rules for the application of the system of export
                                                                            refunds on agricultural products (4 ). In the absence of
                                                                            Community standards, the Member States are
                                                                            competent to define the ' sound and fair marketable
                                                                            quality' of products . The French Commission
                                                                            Interministerielle     de   Coordination     des      Controles
Action brought on 27 June 1997 by the French Republic                       ( Interministerial Commission for Coordinating
    against the Commission of the European Communities                      Controls ) considered that the criteria for determining
                           Case C-235/97 )                                  that the product in question was not of sound and fair
                                                                            marketable quality were not satisfied. The cheese was
                           ( 97/C 252/40 )                                  destroyed in order to preserve the product's brand
                                                                            image after the customs formalities had been
                                                                            completed and despite the fact that the Saudi
An action against the Commission of the European                            authorities had not expressed any reservations on
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on                      importation.
27 June 1997 by the French Republic, represented by
Kareen Rispal-Bellanger, Deputy Director of the Legal                 H OJ No L 139, 30 . 5 . 1997, p . 30 .
Affairs Directorate at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and           (2 ) OJ No C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 , p. 9 .
Frederic Pascal, Attache from the Central Administration              (3 ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 ( 1 ), p. 218 .
                                                                      (4 ) OJ No L 351 , 14 . 12 . 1987, p. 1 .
in the same Department, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8B
Boulevard Joseph II.
The French Republic claims that the Court should :
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret
                                                                      by order of 24 June 1997 in the case of Skatteministeriet
— declare null and void Commission Decision 97/333/EC                            v. Aktieselskabet Forsikringsselskabet Codan
      of 23 April 1997 (') on the clearance of the accounts                                     ( Case C-236/97)
      presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/41 )
      expenditure for 1993 on the Guarantee Section of the
      European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
      ( EAGGF), inasmuch as that decision disallows for               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      France :                                                        European Communities by order of 24 June 1997 from
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 8 . 97            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 252/21
the 0stre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court), which was                              member comparable to children of the family, to be
received at the Court Registry on 27 June 1997, for a                               regarded as accommodation referred to in Article
preliminary ruling in the case of Skatteministeriet                                 2 ( l)(b)?
( Danish Ministry for Fiscal Affairs) v. Aktieselskabet
Forsikringsselskabet Codan, a limited-liability insurance                  2.2 . Are the training of the student and his parents, the
company, on the following question:                                                 selecting of the host family and the school in the host
                                                                                country, and the preparation of documentation
Must Article 12 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC                         relating to the country to be regarded as other tourist
of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of                         services referred to in Article 2 ( 1 ) ( c)?
capital H be construed as authorizing duty to be charged
on the transfer of shares, irrespective of whether the                     ( 1 ) OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990, p . 59 .
company which issued those shares is admitted to trade on
a Stock Exchange and irrespective of whether the share
transfer is effected through the Stock Exchange or directly
between the transferor and the acquiring party ?
(') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( II ), p. 412 .
                                                                           Action brought on 27 June 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                ( Case C-238/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/43
                                                                           An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 23 June 1997 in                  on 27 June 1997 by the Commission of the European
       the case of AFS Intercultural Programs Finland ry                   Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal
                         ( Case C-237/97 )                                 Adviser, and Fernando Castillo de la Torre, of its Legal
                           ( 97/C 252/42 )                                 Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                           Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Korkein                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Hallinto-oikeus ( Supreme Administrative Court) of 23 June
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June                  1 . declare that, by not adjusting the Agreement between
 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of AFS                                 Spain and Tunisia (') so as to give access to cargo
 Intercultural Programs Finland ry on the following                                shares by Community nationals or by not
 questions:                                                                        communicating such adjustments, the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3
 1.     Does a student exchange journey of a duration of                           and 4 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86 ( 2), and
        about six months or a year, the purpose of which is
        not travel or tourism but attending school in a                     2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
        foreign country and getting to know its people and
        culture by living in a local family as a family member              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
        without payment, fall wholly or partly within
        the scope of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 30                     Under Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4055/86, cargo
        June 1990 on package travel, package holidays                       sharing agreements contained in existing bilateral
        and package tours ( ! )? Are characteristics which                  agreements are to be phased out or adjusted . The
        emphasize the non-commercial nature of the                          provisions of Articles 10 and 12 of the Agreement
        organization of the journey, such as the fact that a                between Spain and Tunisia constitute cargo agreements
        participant has to pay only part of the travel costs                and are thus subject to that requirement. Article 4 ( 1 ) ( b )
        himself, that the journeys are organized in                         of the Regulation provides for an adjustment period
        cooperation between public-interest associations of                 ending on 1 January 1993 . With reference to Article
        different countries and are largely based on voluntary              4 ( 1 ) ( a ), the Commission notes that Spain did not accede
                                                                            to the United Nations              Code       of Conduct for Liner
        work, and that the journeys are supported by State
        cultural funds, of relevance for whether a student                  Conferences until 3 February 1994 . Regulation ( EEC )
        exchange journey falls within the scope of the                      No 4055/86 does not merely provide that Member States
        Package Travel Directive ?                                          are to request non-member countries to accept adjustment
                                                                            of such agreements: if there is no acceptance or even
  2.    If the student exchange journeys described above fall               formal acknowledgment of receipt of such a request, the
                                                                             agreements may be denounced ( such denouncement is
        within the general scope of the Package Travel
        Directive, an answer is also sought to the following                provided for in Article 22 of the Agreement with Tunisia ).
        questions concerning the detailed interpretation of
        Article 2 of that Directive :                                        (') Agreement on carriage by sea , Boletm Oficial del Estado,
                                                                                1986 , p. 899 .
                                                                             ( 2 ) OJ No L 378 , 31 . 12 . 1986 , p . 1 .
  2.1 . Is long-term accommodation without payment,
        whose essence is living in a family as a family


title: Case T-356/12: Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2014  — Debonair Trading Internacional v OHIM — Ibercosmetica (SÔ:UNIC) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SÔ:UNIC — Earlier Community and national word marks SO…?, SO…? ONE, SO…? CHIC and non-registered word marks — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Family of marks — Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rule 15(2)(b)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Admissibility of the opposition)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 April 2014 — Debonair Trading Internacional v OHIM — Ibercosmetica (SÔ:UNIC)
   (Case T-356/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SÔ:UNIC - Earlier Community and national word marks SO…?, SO…? ONE, SO…? CHIC and non-registered word marks - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Family of marks - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rule 15(2)(b)(iii) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Admissibility of the opposition))
   2014/C 159/30
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Debonair Trading Internacional Lda (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ibercosmetica SA de CV (Mexico City, Mexico)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 June 2012 (Case R 1033/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Debonair Trading Internacional Lda and Ibercosmetica, SA de CV

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 June 2012 (Case R 1033/2011-4) in so far as the Board of Appeal rejected as inadmissible the opposition based on Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark with regard to the signs relied on by Debonair Trading Internacional Lda so far as the United Kingdom and Ireland are concerned;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.


title: Case F-144/07: Action brought on 24 December 2007 — Efstathopoulos v Parliament

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/50

         Action brought on 24 December 2007 — Efstathopoulos v Parliament
   (Case F-144/07)
   (2008/C 92/102)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Spyridon Efstathopoulos (Chalandri, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Michi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 18 April 2007, in those parts concerning the taking into account of a ‘productivity allowance’ in the applicant's gross salary; the recovery, already effected, of the sum of EUR 390 from the applicant's retirement pension; the obligation to recover the sum of EUR 10 036,99 for the period from March 2005 to March 2007; and the monthly reduction of the applicant's pension by EUR 600 for the entire period during which he was paid the allowance in issue of EUR 670, namely between March 2005 and September 2007.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 18 April 2007, PERS-B-AFF-SOCIAL D(2007) 22300 in those parts which relate to the inclusion of the ‘productivity allowance’ in the applicant's gross salary; the recovery, already effected, of the sum of EUR 390 from the applicant's retirement pension; the obligation to recover the sum of EUR 10 036,99 for the period from March 2005 to March 2007; and the monthly reduction of the applicant's pension by EUR 600 for the entire period during which he was paid the allowance in issue of EUR 670, namely between March 2005 and September 2007;

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of the European Parliament of 14 September 2007 rejecting the complaint of 9 May 2007 brought by the applicant against the decision of 18 April 2007;

               —

               Annul any other decision connected or subsequent to those decisions or taken in execution of them;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 September 2003 in Case C-285/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative d'appel de Douai): Isabel Burbaud v Ministère de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité (Recognition of diplomas — Hospital managers in the public service — Directive 89/48/EEC — Definition of "diploma" — Entrance examination — Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC))

text:
1.11.2003                EN                            Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 264/11
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                       provision relating to substantial equivalence within the meaning
court between Monsanto Agricoltura Italia SpA and Others                              of the first subparagraph of Article 3(4) of the Regulation.
and Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri and Others, on
the interpretation and validity of the first subparagraph of
Article 3(4) and the first paragraph of Article 5 of Regulation                (1) OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.
(EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food
ingredients (OJ 1997 L 43, p. 1), and on the interpretation of
Article 12 thereof, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet and C.W.A. Timmermans
(Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, S. von Bahr,                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                                        of 9 September 2003
has given a judgment on 9 September 2003, in which it has
ruled:
                                                                               in Case C-285/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the Cour administrative d’appel de Douai): Isabel Burbaud
                                                                                v Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité (1)
                                                                               (Recognition of diplomas — Hospital managers in the public
                                                                               service — Directive 89/48/EEC — Definition of ‘diploma’
1.    The first subparagraph of Article 3(4) of Regulation (EC)                — Entrance examination — Article 48 of the EC Treaty
      No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of                             (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC))
      27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food
      ingredients must be interpreted as meaning that the mere                                             (2003/C 264/18)
      presence in novel foods of residues of transgenic protein at
      certain levels does not preclude those foods from being considered
      substantially equivalent to existing foods and, consequently, use                               (Language of the case: French)
      of the simplified procedure for placing those foods on the
      market. However, that is not the case where the existence of a           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      risk of potentially dangerous effects on human health can be                                   in the European Court Reports)
      identified on the basis of the scientific knowledge available at
      the time of the initial assessment. It is for the national court to
      determine whether that condition is satisfied.
                                                                               In Case C-285/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                               EC by the Cour administrative d’appel de Douai (France) for a
                                                                               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                               court between Isabel Burbaud and Ministère de l’Emploi et de
                                                                               la Solidarité, on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC
2.    In principle, the issue of the validity of the use of the simplified     Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and of Council
      procedure laid down in Article 5 of Regulation No 258/97 for             Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
      the placing of novel foods on the market does not affect the             system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas
      power of the Member States to adopt measures falling under               awarded on completion of professional education and training
      Article 12 of the Regulation, such as the Decree of 4 August             of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16), the
      2000 at issue in the main proceedings. Since the simplified              Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,
      procedure does not imply any consent, even tacit, by the                 J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timm-
      Commission, a Member State is not required to challenge the              ermans (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
      lawfulness of such a consent before adopting such measures.              D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
      Nevertheless, those measures can be adopted only if the Member           N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,
      State has first carried out a risk assessment which is as complete       Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
      as possible given the particular circumstances of the individual         Administrator, for the Registrar, subsequently H. von Holstein,
      case, from which it is apparent that, in the light of the                Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 September 2003,
      precautionary principle, the implementation of such measures is          in which it has ruled:
      necessary in order to ensure that novel foods do not present a
      danger for the consumer, in accordance with the first indent of
      Article 3(1) of Regulation No 258/97.                                    1.     Confirmation of passing the final examination of the École
                                                                                nationale de la santé publique, which leads to permanent
                                                                                appointment to the French hospital public service, must be
                                                                                regarded as a ‘diploma’ within the meaning of Council Directive
                                                                                89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for
                                                                                the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
3.    Consideration of the fourth question has disclosed no factor                    completion of professional education and training of at least
      such as to affect the validity of Article 5 of Regulation No 258/               three years’ duration. It is for the national court to determine,
      97 as regards, inter alia, the condition for application of that                for the purposes of applying point (a) of the first paragraph of
 ---pagebreak--- C 264/12                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             1.11.2003
     Article 3 of that directive, whether a qualification obtained in        for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     another Member State by a national of a Member State wishing            court between Albacom SpA (C-292/01), Infostrada SpA
     to pursue a regulated profession in the host Member State can           (C-293/01) and Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della
     be regarded as a diploma within the meaning of that provision           Programmazione Economica, Ministero delle Comunicazioni,
     and, if so, to determine the extent to which the training courses       on the interpretation of Directive 97/13/EC of the European
     whose successful completion leads to the award of those                 Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common
     diplomas are similar with regard to both their duration and the         framework for general authorisations and individual licences
     matters covered. If it is apparent from that court’s examination        in the field of telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117,
     that both qualifications constitute diplomas within the meaning         p. 15), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
     of that directive and that those diplomas are awarded on the            President of the Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola,
     completion of equivalent education or training, the directive           P. Jann and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
     precludes the authorities of the host Member State from making          Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     access by that national of a Member State to the profession of          judgment on 18 September 2003, in which it has ruled:
     manager in the hospital public service subject to the condition
     that he complete the training given by the École nationale de la
     santé publique and pass the final examination at the end of             Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                             of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations
     that training.
                                                                             and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services
                                                                             and, in particular, Article 11 thereof, prohibit Member States from
2.   Where a national of a Member State holds a diploma obtained
                                                                             imposing financial charges other than and in addition to those
     in one Member State which is equivalent to the diploma
                                                                             allowed by the directive, such as the contested charge in the main
     required in another Member State in order to take up
                                                                             proceedings, on undertakings which hold individual licences in the
     employment in the hospital public service, Community law
                                                                             telecommunications sector solely because they hold such licences.
     precludes the authorities of the second Member State from
     making that national’s access to the employment in question
     subject to his passing a competition such as the entrance
                                                                             (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001 and OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
     examination of the École nationale de la santé publique.
(1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 (First Chamber)
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                          of 11 September 2003
                      of 18 September 2003                                   in Case C-331/01: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
In Joined Cases C-292/01 and C-293/01 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): Albacom
                                                                             (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Additional payments
SpA (C-292/01), Infostrada SpA (C-293/01) v Ministero
                                                                             granted to producers of bovine animals in 1996 — Time-
del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Econ-
          omica, Ministero delle Comunicazioni (1)                                      limits for notification of results of checks)
(Telecommunications services — General authorisations and                                              (2003/C 264/20)
individual licences — Directive 97/13/EC — Fees and
                 charges for individual licences)                                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                          (2003/C 264/19)                                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                            In Case C-331/01, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: initially by
                                                                             M. López-Monís Gallego and subsequently by L. Fraguas
                                                                             Gadea) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                             S. Pardo Quintillán): Application for the annulment of Com-
In Joined Cases C-292/01 and C-293/01: Reference to the                      mission Decision 2001/557/EC of 11 July 2001 excluding
Court under Article 234 EC by the Consiglio di Stato (Italy)                 from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by


title: Case T-243/13: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — ICT v Commission (Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/58

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — ICT v Commission
   (Case T-243/13) (1)

   ((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/97
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA (ICT) (Borgo a Mozzano, Italy) (represented by: J. M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Industrie Cartarie Tronchetti SpA (ICT) is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case F-84/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Cerafogli v European Central Bank (Staff case — ECB Staff — Action for damages seeking compensation for harm resulting directly from alleged illegality of conditions of employment and staff rules — Civil Service Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction — Inadmissible — Release from service for staff representation — No adjustment of workload — Wrongful act)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/36

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Cerafogli v European Central Bank
   (Case F-84/08) (1)

   (Staff case - ECB Staff - Action for damages seeking compensation for harm resulting directly from alleged illegality of conditions of employment and staff rules - Civil Service Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction - Inadmissible - Release from service for staff representation - No adjustment of workload - Wrongful act)
   2011/C 13/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Malfrère and N. Urban, agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for an order requiring the ECB to pay compensation in respect of the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant on account of discrimination connected with her trade union activities.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the European Central Bank to pay Ms Cerafogli the sum of EUR 5 000;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application:

               3.

               Orders the European Central Bank to bear its own costs and to pay one third of Ms Cerafogli’s costs;

               4.

               Orders Ms Cerafogli to bear two thirds of her costs.

      (1)  OJ C 327 of 20.12.2008, p. 43.


23.1.1999             EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 20/29
      Removal from the register of Case C-296/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-377/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 20/48)                                                   (1999/C 20/51)
By order of 7 October 1998, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal          By order of 9 October 1998, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-296/97 (Reference for a              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für           from the register of Case C-377/97: Commission of the
das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen): Ulrich Gloger v. Bergamt          European Communities v. Greek Republic.
Kamen, intervener: Vertreter des Öffentlichen Interesses
beim Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-              (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
Westfalen (Representative of the Public Interest before the
Higher Administrative Court for the Land North
Rhine-Westphalia).
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
                                                                 Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-239/96 and
                                                                                C-240/96 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/52)
      Removal from the register of Case C-369/97 ( )1
                       (1999/C 20/49)                            By order of 14 October 1998, the President of the Court
                                                                 of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 8 October 1998, the President of the Court of        removal from the register of Joined Cases C-239/96 and
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal          C-240/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
from the register of Case C-369/97 (Reference for a              Ireland, interveners: Federal Republic of Germany,
preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Schutz-       Kingdom of Denmark and Council of the European Union
verband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v. F. W. Woolworth           v. Commission of the European Communities, intervener:
Co Gesellschaft mbH.                                             European Parliament.
(1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-382/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 20/50)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-370/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/53)
By order of 8 October 1998, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-382/97 (Reference for a              By order of 20 October 1998, the President of the Court
preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof):             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Gerhard Köbler v. Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, For-          removal from the register of Case C-370/97 (Reference for
schung und Kunst.                                                a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof):
                                                                 Poloco SA v. Jürgen Denz.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.


title: Case T-97/06: Action brought on  29 March 2006  — Neoperl v OHIM

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/44

         Action brought on 29 March 2006 — Neoperl v OHIM
   (Case T-97/06)
   (2006/C 131/82)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Neoperl GmbH (Müllheim, Germany) (represented by H. Börjes-Pestalozza, lawyer)

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

               —

               annul contested Decision R 0612/2005-4 and order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to publish application No 3 636 206 for the purposes of its registration as a Community trade mark.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three dimensional mark ‘Sanitärschlauch’ — shape of a tube — for goods in Classes 11 and 17 — Application No 3 636 206.

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The mark applied for has the necessary distinctive character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case C-428/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 29 September 2008 — Monsanto Technology LLC v 1. Cefetra BV, 2. Cefetra Feed Service BV, 3. Cefetra Futures BV, and 4. State of Argentina and Miguel Santiago Campos, acting in his capacity as Secretary of State for Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Food, and Monsanto Technology LLC v 1. Vopak Agencies Rotterdam BV, and 2. Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage (Netherlands) lodged on 29 September 2008 — Monsanto Technology LLC v 1. Cefetra BV, 2. Cefetra Feed Service BV, 3. Cefetra Futures BV, and 4. State of Argentina and Miguel Santiago Campos, acting in his capacity as Secretary of State for Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Food, and Monsanto Technology LLC v 1. Vopak Agencies Rotterdam BV, and 2. Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH
   (Case C-428/08)
   (2008/C 313/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Monsanto Technology LLC
   Defendants:

               1.

               Cefetra BV,

               2.

               Cefetra Feed Service BV,

               3.

               Cefetra Futures BV,

               4.

               State of Argentina and Miguel Santiago Campos, acting in his capacity as Secretary of State for Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, Fisheries and Food

      Applicant: Monsanto Technology LLC
   Defendants:

               1.

               Vopak Agencies Rotterdam BV,

               2.

               Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH

         Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 9 of Directive 98/44/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions be interpreted as meaning that the protection provided under that article can be invoked even in a situation such as that in the present proceedings, in which the product (the DNA sequence) forms part of a material imported into the European Union (soy meal) and does not perform its function at the time of the alleged infringement, but has indeed performed its function (in the soy plant) or would possibly again be able to perform its function after it has been isolated from that material and inserted into the cell of an organism?

               2.

               Proceeding on the basis that the DNA sequence described in claim 6 of patent no EP 0 546 090 is present in the soy meal imported into the Community by Cefetra and ACTI, and that the DNA is incorporated in the soy meal for the purposes of Article 9 of Directive 98/44 and that it does not perform its function therein:
               does the protection of a patent on biological material as provided for by Directive 98/44, in particular Article 9, preclude the national patent legislation from offering (in parallel) absolute protection to the product (the DNA) as such, regardless of whether that DNA performs its function, and must the protection as provided under Article 9 of the Directive therefore be deemed to be exhaustive in the situation referred to in that article, in which the product consists of genetic information or contains such information, and the product is incorporated in material which contains the genetic information?

               3.

               Does it make any difference, for the purpose of answering the previous question, that patent no EP 0 546 090 was applied for and granted (on 19 June 1996) prior to the adoption of Directive 98/44 and that such absolute product protection was granted under national patent legislation prior to the adoption of that directive?

               4.

               Is it possible, in answering the previous questions, to take into consideration the TRIPS Agreement, in particular Articles 27 and 30 thereof?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13.


title: Case F-55/10 RENV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — Moschonaki v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Referral back to the Tribunal after annulment — Recruitment — Vacancy notice internal to the institution — Eligibility conditions in the vacancy notice — Appointing authority’s discretion)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — Moschonaki v Commission
   (Case F-55/10 RENV)
   ((Civil service - Officials - Referral back to the Tribunal after annulment - Recruitment - Vacancy notice internal to the institution - Eligibility conditions in the vacancy notice - Appointing authority’s discretion))
   2014/C 421/63
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Chrysanthe Moschonaki (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Referral back after annulment — Application to annul the decision refusing to take into consideration the applicant’s candidature for a post as assistant librarian and for an order that the Commission pays her a sum by way of compensation for the material and non-material harm suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of 30 September 2009 by which the European Commission rejected Ms Moschonaki’s candidature for the post of ‘[a]ssistant [l]ibrarian/[d]ocumentalist’;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay Ms Moschonaki the sum of EUR 5  000;

               3.

               Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by Ms Moschonaki in Cases F-55/10, T-476/11 P and F-55/10 RENV.


title: Case C-486/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic. (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Waste recovery — Installation for the production of electricity by the incineration of combustible materials derived from waste and biomass in Massafra (Taranto) — Directives 75/442/EEC and 85/337/EEC)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
   (Case C-486/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - Waste recovery - Installation for the production of electricity by the incineration of combustible materials derived from waste and biomass in Massafra (Taranto) - Directives 75/442/EEC and 85/337/EEC)
   (2006/C 331/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek, Agent, A. Capobianco and F. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, agent, M. Fiorilli and G. Fiengo, lawyers)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 2(1) and Article 4(1), (2) and (3) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Installation for the production of electricity by the incineration of combustible material derived from waste and biomass at Massafra (Taranto)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that

                           —

                           by exempting from the environmental impact assessment procedure the Massafra installation for the incineration of combustible materials derived from waste and biomass, with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day, covered by point 10 of Annex I to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997,

                           —

                           by adopting Article 3(1) of the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 3 September 1999, entitled ‘Policy and coordination measure amending and completing the earlier policy and coordination measure for the implementation of Article 40(1) of Law No 146 of 22 February 1994 concerning provisions relating to the assessment of environmental impact’, amending Annex A(i) and (l) to the Decree of the President of the Republic of 12 April 1996, entitled ‘Policy and coordination measure for the implementation of Article 40(1) of Law No 146 of 22 February 1994 concerning provisions relating to the assessment of environmental impact’, allowing projects for the recovery of hazardous and non-hazardous waste with a capacity exceeding 100 tonnes per day covered by Annex I to Council Directive 85/337, as amended by Council Directive 97/11, to avoid the environmental impact assessment procedure provided for in Articles 2(1) and 4(1) of that directive, and

                           —

                           by adopting Article 3(1) of the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 3 September 1999, laying down, for the purposes of determining whether a project covered by Annex II to Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 97/11, must be subject to an environmental impact assessment, a criterion which is inappropriate in that it may exclude projects which have a significant effect on the environment from that assessment,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1) and 4(1), (2) and (3) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 January 2005 in Case C-208/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État in Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL v Région wallonne (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Concept of waste — List of materials that are equatable with products)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/12

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 28 January 2005
   in Case C-208/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État in Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL v Région wallonne (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Concept of waste - List of materials that are equatable with products)
   (2005/C 106/24)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-208/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (Council of State, Belgium), made by decision of 29 April 2004, received at the Court on 11 May 2004, in the proceedings between Inter-Environnement Wallonie ASBL and Région wallonne — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, P. Kūris (Rapporteur) and J. Klučka, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 28 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, precludes the introduction by States of a new category of materials which do not come under either the category of waste or that of products even though that new category of materials may contain substances or objects liable to meet the definition of ‘waste’ within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 179 of 10.7.2004.


title: Case C-47/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 1 February 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 1 February 2017 — X v Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
   (Case C-47/17)
   (2017/C 112/33)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Den Haag, sitting in Haarlem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Should the requested Member State, having regard to the objective, the content and the scope of the Dublin Regulation (1) and the Procedures Directive, (2) respond within two weeks to a re-examination request as contained in Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation? (3)

               (2)

               If the answer to the first question is in the negative, does the time limit of a maximum of one month as provided for in Article 20(1)(b) of Regulation No 343/2003 (4) (now Article 25(1) of the Dublin Regulation) apply, having regard to the last sentence of Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation?

               (3)

               If the answer to the first and second questions is in the negative, does the requested Member State, due to the use of the word ‘beijvert’ [English: ‘shall endeavour’] in Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation, have a reasonable period of time to respond to the re-examination request?

               (4)

               If there is indeed a reasonable period of time within which the requested Member State should respond to the re-examination request under Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation, can there, after

                        over six months

                   have passed, as in the present case, still be talk of a reasonable period of time? If the answer to that question is in the negative, what qualifies as a reasonable period of time?

               (5)

               What should be the consequence of the requested Member State not responding within two weeks, one month or a reasonable period of time to a re-examination request? Is the requesting Member State then responsible for the substantive assessment of the foreign national’s asylum application or is that the responsibility of the requested Member State?

               (6)

               If one should proceed on the assumption that the requested Member State becomes responsible for the substantive examination of the asylum application due to the lack of a timely response to the re-examination request as referred to in Article 5(2) of the Implementing Regulation, within what period of time should the requesting Member State, the defendant in the present case, notify the foreign national of that?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 31).

      (2)  Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection (OJ 2013 L 180, p. 60).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 222, p. 3).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1).


title: Case C-81/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE v Ypourgos Oikonomikon (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — General arrangements governing excise duty — Directive 92/12/EEC — Manufactured tobacco moving under an excise duty suspension arrangement — Liability of the authorised warehousekeeper — Whether Member States may make the authorised warehousekeeper jointly and severally liable for the payment of sums corresponding to the financial penalties imposed on those engaged in smuggling — Principles of proportionality and legal certainty)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 2 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias — Greece) — Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE v Ypourgos Oikonomikon
   (Case C-81/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - General arrangements governing excise duty - Directive 92/12/EEC - Manufactured tobacco moving under an excise duty suspension arrangement - Liability of the authorised warehousekeeper - Whether Member States may make the authorised warehousekeeper jointly and severally liable for the payment of sums corresponding to the financial penalties imposed on those engaged in smuggling - Principles of proportionality and legal certainty))
   (2016/C 287/12)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kapnoviomichania Karelia AE

      Defendant: Ypourgos Oikonomikon

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, read in the light of the general principles of EU law, in particular the principles of legal certainty and proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation — such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits, inter alia, the owners of products moving under excise duty suspension arrangements to be declared jointly and severally liable for payment of sums corresponding to the financial penalties imposed in the event of the commission of an offence during the movement of those products under excise duty suspension, where the owners are linked to the perpetrators of the offence by a contractual relationship making them their agents — under which the authorised warehousekeeper is declared jointly and severally liable for payment of those sums, with no possibility for him to escape that liability by providing proof that he had nothing whatsoever to do with the acts of the perpetrators of the offence, even if, under national law, that warehousekeeper was neither the owner of those products at the time when the offence was committed nor linked to the perpetrators of that offence by a contractual relationship making them his agents.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case C-273/06: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien, Austria) — Auto Peter Petschenig GmbH v Toyota Frey Austria GmbH (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Competition — Distribution agreement relating to motor vehicles — Block exemption — Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 — Article 5(3) — Termination by the supplier — Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 — Need to reorganise the distribution network)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/11

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 26 January 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien, Austria) — Auto Peter Petschenig GmbH v Toyota Frey Austria GmbH
   (Case C-273/06) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Competition - Distribution agreement relating to motor vehicles - Block exemption - Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 - Article 5(3) - Termination by the supplier - Entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 - Need to reorganise the distribution network)
   (2007/C 82/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Handelsgericht Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Auto Peter Petschenig GmbH

      Defendant: Toyota Frey Austria GmbH
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Handelsgericht Wien — Interpretation of the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (OJ 1995 L 145, p. 25) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector (OJ 2002 L 203, p. 30) — Termination of a distribution agreement by the supplier on one year's notice on the ground that reorganisation of the whole or a substantial part of the network is needed owing to the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The entry into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1400/2002 of 31 July 2002 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices in the motor vehicle sector does not in itself make it necessary to reorganise the distribution network of a supplier within the meaning of the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of Article [81](3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements. However, that entry into force may, in relation to the specific organisation of the distribution network of each supplier, necessitate changes that are so substantial that they constitute a real reorganisation of the network within the meaning of that provision.

               2.

               The putting in place by a supplier after the entry into force of Regulation No 1400/2002 of a selective distribution system under which, first, the dealers are no longer restricted to a territory on which they may sell the contractual goods and, secondly, the authorised repairers may limit their activities to only providing repair and maintenance services is capable of constituting a reorganisation of the distribution network within the meaning of first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 1475/95. It is for the national courts or arbitrators to determine whether that is the case, in the light of all the evidence in the specific case and, in particular, of the evidence submitted to this end by the supplier.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case T-152/12: Action brought on 4 April 2012 — Deutsche Post v Commission

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/30

         Action brought on 4 April 2012 — Deutsche Post v Commission
   (Case T-152/12)
   2012/C 165/51
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: J. Sedemund, T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Articles 1 and 2, as well as Articles 4 to 6, of the Decision of the European Commission of 25 January 2012 on Measure C 36/2007 (ex NN 25/2007) granted by Germany in favour of Deutsche Post AG (Commission Document No C(2012) 184 final);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant raises a total of 13 pleas in law in support of its action:

               A.

               The applicant raises 10 pleas in law in support of its action for annulment of Article 1 and Articles 4 to 6 of the Commission Decision of 25 January 2012:

                           First plea in law: Breach of Article 107(1) TFEU
                           by reason of the incorrect classification, at variance with the ‘Combus’ case-law of the Court, (1) of the partial financing by the State of outstanding pension commitments of a former State-owned enterprise as an element constituting aid;

                           Second plea in law: Breach of Article 108(1) TFEU and of Article 1(b)(i) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2)

                           by reason of the incorrect classification of the partial financing by the State of outstanding pension commitments as ‘new’ aid;

                           Third plea in law: Breach of Article 107(1) TFEU
                           by reason of the improper treatment of the regulated charges as an element constituting aid, contrary to the ‘PreussenElektra’ case-law of the Court of Justice, (3) and of the objection of a mere (allegedly) inappropriate allocation of costs between two product groups as an element constituting aid;

                           Fourth plea in law: Errors of competence and assessment, in addition to infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and of the duty of genuine cooperation with Member States
                           by reason of the retrospective infringement of the national regulation of charges, despite a long-standing knowledge of that regulation and contrary to the Commission’s entire decision-making practice to date;

                           Fifth plea in law: Breach of Article 107(1) and (3) TFEU
                           by reason of the incorrect fixing of the social security contributions to be borne by private competitors (‘benchmark’), as well as by reason of a fictitious increase in the actual gross earnings of officials as the calculation basis for the application of the ‘benchmark’;

                           Sixth plea in law: Failure to state adequate grounds pursuant to Article 296 TFEU
                           by reason of the fact that the extremely extensive content of the contested decision is in part unclear, contradictory or incomprehensible and fails to indicate clearly the connection between the individual parts;

                           Seventh plea in law: Infringement of the principle of legality and Article 107(1) TFEU
                           due to the contradictory description of the basis for the calculation of the amount to be paid back and the fact that it is not identifiable;

                           Eighth plea in law: Infringement of the right to ‘have affairs handled within a reasonable time’ as an aspect of the right to ‘good administration’ under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter of Fundamental Rights) and Article 10(1) of Regulation No 659/1999
                           by reason of the fact that the proceedings lasted more than 12 years from the opening decision of 1999 up to the contested decision of 25 January 2012;

                           Ninth plea in law: Infringement of the right to ‘good administration’ resulting from Article 41(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as breach of Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999
                           by reason of the complete failure to act in relation to the regulation of charges under Paragraph 20(2) of the German Postgesetz, of which the Commission was aware since 1999 at the latest, but which was made the subject-matter of the proceedings only after more than 11 years by the extension decision of 10 May 2011;

                           Tenth plea in law: Infringement of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and sound administration, which are protected as fundamental rights, as well as breach of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 659/1999
                           by reason of the failure to recognise the conclusive nature of the decision of 2002, which, according to the Commission, contrary to the imperative duty arising out of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 659/1999, did not ‘conclusively’ regulate the State measures which were the subject-matter of the proceedings and to which the pension costs also belonged.

               B.

               The applicant raises three further pleas in law in support of its action for annulment of Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 25 January 2012:

                           Eleventh plea in law: Infringement of the principles of ‘sound administration’ and a ‘reasonable duration’ of proceedings
                           by reason of an unlawful failure to examine the existence of ‘over-compensation’ by the ‘financial compensation’ since 1999, as the Court has already determined in its judgment in Case T-266/02 Deutsche Post v Commission [2008] ECR II-1233;

                           Twelfth plea in law: Breach of Article 106(2) TFEU
                           by the provision of inadequate reasoning for the fact that the fourth criterion of the ‘Altmark’ (4) judgment was not satisfied in the present case;

                           Thirteenth plea in law: Incorrect application of the aid element in Article 107(1) TFEU
                           by reason of the fact that the ‘financial compensation’ fulfils the conditions governing a finding that there is a service of general economic interest within the terms of Article 106(2) TFEU.

      (1)  Judgment in Case T-157/01 Danske Busvognmænd v Commission [2004] ECR II-917.

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

      (3)  Judgment in Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099.

      (4)  Judgment in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg [2003] ECR I-7747.


title: Judgment of the Court of 8 April 2003 in Joined Cases C-53/01, C-54/01 and C-55/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Linde AG (C-53/01), Winward Industries Inc. (C-54/01), and v Rado Uhren AG (C-55/01) (Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Grounds for refusal to register — Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) — Three-dimensional shape of product mark — Distinctive character — Preserving the availability of certain signs in the public interest)

text:
C 135/4                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                7.6.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            the importance of the brand in the buyer’s choice and by a
                                                                                major difference between the respective brand names of the
                                                                                compared products in terms of how well known they are,
                           of 8 April 2003                                         omission of the better-known brand name is capable of being
                                                                                misleading.
in Case C-44/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     3.    Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, as amended, does not
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Pippig Augenoptik GmbH &                                preclude compared products from being purchased through
Co. KG v Hartlauer Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Verlassen-                             different distribution channels.
  schaft nach dem verstorbenen Franz Josef Hartlauer (1)
                                                                             4.    Article 3a(1) of Directive 84/450, as amended, does not
                                                                                preclude an advertiser from carrying out a test purchase with a
(Approximation of laws — Directives 84/450/EEC and
                                                                                competitor before his own offer has even commenced, where the
97/55/EC — Misleading advertising — Conditions for
                                                                                conditions for the lawfulness of comparative advertising set out
              comparative advertising to be lawful)
                                                                                therein are complied with.
                           (2003/C 135/05)                                   5.    A price comparison does not entail the discrediting of a
                                                                                competitor, within the meaning of Article 3a(1)(e) of Directive
                                                                                84/450, as amended, either on the grounds that the difference
                    (Language of the case: German)                                 in price between the products compared is greater than the
                                                                                average price difference or by reason of the number of
                                                                                comparisons made. Article 3a(1)(e) of Directive 84/450, as
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             amended, does not prevent comparative advertising, in addition
                    in the European Court Reports)                                 to citing the competitor’s name, from reproducing its logo and
                                                                                a picture of its shop front, if that advertising complies with the
                                                                                conditions for lawfulness laid down by Community law.
In Case C-44/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                 (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.
by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Pippig
Augenoptik GmbH & Co. KG and Hartlauer Handelsgesell-
schaft mbH, Verlassenschaft nach dem verstorbenen Franz
Josef Hartlauer, on the interpretation of Council Directive 84/
450/EEC of 10 September 1984 on misleading and compara-
tive advertising (OJ 1984 L 250, p. 17), as amended by
Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Council of 6 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 290 p. 18), the
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-                                              of 8 April 2003
P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presi-
dents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, V. Skouris, F. Macken,
                                                                             in Joined Cases C-53/01, C-54/01 and C-55/01 (Reference
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur)
                                                                             for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof):
and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-
                                                                             Linde AG (C-53/01), Winward Industries Inc. (C-54/01),
F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                                and v Rado Uhren AG (C-55/01) (1)
judgment on 8 April 2003, in which it has ruled:
                                                                             (Approximation of laws — Trade marks — Directive 89/
1.    Article 7(2) of Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September           104/EEC — Grounds for refusal to register —
      1984 on misleading and comparative advertising, as amended             Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) — Three-dimensional shape of
      by Directive 97/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the            product mark — Distinctive character — Preserving the
      Council of 6 October 1997, precludes the application to                       availability of certain signs in the public interest)
      comparative advertising of stricter national provisions on
      protection against misleading advertising as far as the form and
      content of the comparison is concerned, without there being any                                    (2003/C 135/06)
      need to establish distinctions between the various elements of
      the comparison, that is to say statements concerning the                                    (Language of the case: German)
      advertiser’s offer, statements concerning the competitor’s offer
      and the relationship between those offers.
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
2.    Article 3a(1)(a) of Directive 84/450, as amended, must be
      interpreted as meaning that, whereas the advertiser is in
      principle free to state or not to state the brand name of rival
      products in comparative advertising, it is for the national court      In Joined Cases C-53/01 to C-55/01: References to the Court
      to verify whether, in particular circumstances, characterised by       under Article 234 EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for
 ---pagebreak--- 7.6.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 135/5
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Linde AG (C-53/01), Winward Industries Inc.
(C-54/01), and and Rado Uhren AG (C-55/01), on the
interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of First Council                                          (Sixth Chamber)
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
1989 L 40, p. 1), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez
                                                                                of 10 April 2003
Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Chamber, C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, V. Skouris, F. Macken (Rappor-
teur), J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-                   in Case C-65/01: Commission of the European Communi-
Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                                           ties v Italian Republic ( 1)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 April 2003, in which it
has ruled:
                                                                              (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                                89/655/EEC — Incomplete transposition)
                                                                                (2003/C 135/07)
1.    When assessing the distinctiveness of a three-dimensional shape
      of product trade mark for the purposes of Article 3(1)(b) of                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
      First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
      approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
      marks, a stricter test than that used for other types of trade          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      mark must not be applied.                                                                   in the European Court Reports)
2.    Independently of Article 3(1)(e) of First Directive 89/104,             In Case C-65/01, Commission of the European Communities
      Article 3(1)(c) also has significance for three-dimensional shape       (Agent: A. Aresu) v Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted
      of product trade marks.                                                 by D. Del Gaizo, avvocato dello Stato): Application for a
                                                                              declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws and regulations
                                                                              necessary to transpose into national law the minimum manda-
                                                                              tory requirements and, therefore, by failing to guarantee the
      When examining the ground for refusing registration in                  protection of workers, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
      Article 3(1)(c) of First Directive 89/104 in a concrete case,           its obligations under Article 4(1) of, and the sixth sentence of
      regard must be had to the public interest underlying that               paragraph 2.1, the second sentence of paragraph 2.2, the
      provision, which is that all three-dimensional shape of product         second to fourth sentences of paragraph 2.3, and the second
      trade marks which consist exclusively of signs or indications           to fifth indents of the second sentence of paragraph 2.8 of
      which may serve to designate the characteristics of the goods or        Annex I to, Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November
      service within the meaning of that provision should be freely           1989 concerning the minimum safety and health requirements
      available to all and, subject always to Article 3(3) of the             for the use of work equipment by workers at work (second
      Directive, cannot be registered.                                        individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
                                                                              Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1989 L 393, p. 13), as amended by
                                                                              Council Directive 95/63/EC of 5 December 1995 (OJ 1995
                                                                              L 335, p. 28), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                              J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
                                                                              F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
                                                                              Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                              given a judgment on 10 April 2003, in which it:
( 1) OJ C 150 of 19.05.2001.
                                                                              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws and regulations
                                                                                necessary to transpose into national law the minimum manda-
                                                                                tory requirements, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                obligations under Article 4(1) of and the sixth sentence of
                                                                                paragraph 2.1, the second sentence of paragraph 2.2, the third
                                                                                and fourth sentences of paragraph 2.3, and the second to fifth
                                                                                indents of the second sentence of paragraph 2.8 of Annex I
                                                                                to Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989
                                                                                concerning the minimum safety and health requirements for the


title: Case F-7/06: Action brought on  23 January 2006  — B v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/35

         Action brought on 23 January 2006 — B v Commission
   (Case F-7/06)
   (2006/C 96/55)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: B (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

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

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 10 October 2005 dismissing the applicant's complaint taken in conjunction with the decision of the Appointing Authority of 26 April 2005 refusing to grant the applicant an expatriation allowance;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant an expatriation allowance, as from the date of taking up her post;

               —

               order the defendant to pay interest for late payment, as from the decision to be taken;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the Commission, challenges the decision which definitively establishes her rights by which the defendant refused her an expatriation allowance.
   In support of her action, she pleads infringement of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. She also raises a plea of unlawfulness to the effect that application of the criterion of nationality, set out in the first indent of that provision, to officials who have both the nationality of the Member State where they are employed and that of another Member State, infringes the principles of non-discrimination and equal treatment.
   Next, the applicant claims that, in any event, she fulfils the condition of residence under the second indent of the provision in question.
   In the alternative, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 4(1)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in so far as the contested decision does not take account of the fact that the applicant satisfies both the criterion of nationality and the criterion of residence cited in that provision.
   In the further alternative, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 4(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in so far as that provision cannot be interpreted as requiring an official with dual nationality to renounce that of the Member State where he is employed in order to be entitled to an expatriation allowance.


title: Case C-85/04: Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 85/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                        3.4.2004
Action brought on 20 February 2004 by the Commission                   The Commission of the European Communities claims that
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                     the Court should:
                            Republic
                                                                       1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (Case C-83/04)                                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                             the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and
                         (2004/C 85/37)                                      winding-up of insurance undertakings (1), and, in any
                                                                             event, by failing to forward those provisions to the
                                                                             Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under Article 31 of that directive;
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
20 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Karen Banks and Gonçalo Braga
de Cruz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       The period for transposition of the directive expired on
1.    declare that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regu-          20 April 2003.
      lations and administrative provisions needed in order to
      comply with Directive 2001/29/EC (1)of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the              (1) OJ L 110 of 20.4.2001, p. 28.
      harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related
      rights in the information society, or, in any event, by
      having failed to inform the Commission thereof, the
      Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under Article 13 of that directive;
2.    order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                                                                                of Luxembourg
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-86/04)
The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired
on 22 December 2002.
                                                                                (2004/C 85/39)
(1) OJ L 167 of 22.6.2001, p. 10.
                                                                       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties on 23 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by E. Traversa and P. Léouffre,
                                                                       acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Action brought on 23 February 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
                         (Case C-85/04)
                                                                       1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                         (2004/C 85/38)                                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                             the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and
                                                                             winding-up of insurance undertakings (1), and, in any
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                 event, by failing to forward those provisions to the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 February                  Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,                          to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
represented by E. Traversa and P. Léouffre, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                             2.    order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.