title: Case C-183/16 P: Appeal brought on 31 March 2016 by Tilly-Sabco against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2016 in Case T-397/13 Tilly-Sabco v Commission

text:
               13.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/32

      Appeal brought on 31 March 2016 by Tilly-Sabco against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 14 January 2016 in Case T-397/13 Tilly-Sabco v Commission

      (Case C-183/16 P)
      (2016/C 211/42)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Tilly-Sabco (represented by: R. Milchior, F. Le Roquais and S. Charbonnel, avocats)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the judgment of the General Court of 14 January 2016 in Case T-397/13, except as regards the admissibility of the action;

                  —

                  decide, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to give final judgment in the matter itself and annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 689/2013 of 18 July 2013 fixing the export refunds on poultry meat (1) at zero;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.

         Grounds of appeal and main arguments

      The appellant relies on four grounds in support of its appeal.
      The first ground alleges misinterpretation by the Court of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers. (2) The appellant claims that the Commission did not permit the management committee to consider, within the prescribed period, all the information, including the refund rate, necessary in order to give its opinion on the draft regulation.
      The second ground alleges misinterpretation of Article 164(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation). (3) The appellant submits, inter alia, that the Court wrongly categorised Implementing Regulation No 689/2013 as a ‘periodic agricultural instrument’.
      The third ground alleges that there is no justification, or no adequate statement of reasons, for Implementing Regulation No 689/2013 and, in particular, focuses on its being categorised as a ‘standard regulation’ and the reasons for setting the refunds at ‘zero’. Furthermore, the appellant complains that the method of determining the refund rate is not subject to judicial review and that the statement of reasons in the judgment under appeal as regards the gradual lowering of the refund rates is self-contradictory.
      The fourth ground alleges a breach of law or a manifest error of assessment in so far as the Court failed to interpret correctly the criteria in Article 164(3) of Regulation No 1234/2007. The appellant submits that, with regard to certain criteria, the Court endorsed the Commission’s taking, at its own discretion and without giving reasons, into account the 2009-2013 reference period, that is to say, a very long period from long ago, instead of the year 2013 as required by the relevant provisions and, in particular, Article 164(3)(a) of Regulation No 1234/2007. According to this plea, the Court also committed a manifest error of assessment in considering, inter alia, that the price difference with regard to Brazilian poultry did not necessitate the introduction of export refunds to ensure equilibrium in the EU poultry meat market and the natural development of prices and trade on that market. Lastly, the Court acknowledged that the Commission had erred in submitting before it arguments different from those submitted before the management committee.

         (1)  OJ 2013 L 196, p. 13.

         (2)  OJ 2011 L 55, p. 13.

         (3)  OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 5 March 2002 in Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and C-526/99 to C-540/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg): Hans Reisch e.a. v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg, Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg (Free movement of capital — Article 56 EC — Prior notification and authorisation procedure for the acquisition of building plots — Absence of purely internal situation)

text:
4.5.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 109/5
(Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber, acting for the              Salzburg, on the interpretation of Articles 56 EC to 60 EC, the
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-               Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of
ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,              the Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,            Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
has given a judgment on 7 March 1999, in which it:                         R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                           General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                           has given a judgment on 5 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
1.     Dismisses the application;
                                                                           Articles 56 EC to 60 EC:
2.     Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           —     do not preclude a prior notification procedure such as that laid
                                                                                down by the scheme for the acquisition of land established by
( 1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                                the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz 1997;
                                                                           —     preclude a prior authorisation procedure such as that laid down
                                                                                by that scheme.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                            5 March 2002
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and C-526/99 to
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
C-540/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg): Hans Reisch
e.a. v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg,                                                27 February 2002
Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg, Grund-
     verkehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg (1)
                                                                           in Case C-6/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Abfall Service AG (ASA) v
(Free movement of capital — Article 56 EC — Prior                              Bundesminister für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie (1)
notification and authorisation procedure for the acquisition
   of building plots — Absence of purely internal situation)
                                                                           (Environment — Waste — Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 on
                                                                           shipments of waste — Competence of the authority of
                           (2002/C 109/07)                                 dispatch to scrutinise the classification of the purpose of a
                                                                           shipment (recovery or disposal) and to object to a shipment
                                                                           on the ground of an incorrect classification — Directive
                    (Language of the case: German)                         75/442/EEC on waste — Classification of deposit of waste
                                                                                in a disused mine)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                   (2002/C 109/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Joined Cases C-515/99, C-519/99 to C-524/99 and
C-526/99 to C-540/99: Reference to the Court under                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Article 234 EC by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salz-                                     in the European Court Reports)
burg (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Hans Reisch (C-515/99),
Walter Riedl (C-527/99), Alexander Hacker (C-528/99),
Gerhard Eckert (C-529/99), Franz Gstöttenbauer (C-530/99),                 In Case C-6/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Helmut Hechwarter (C-531/99), Alois Bixner (C-532/99), Geza                by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
Aumüller (C-533/99), Berthold Garstenauer (C-534/99 and                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
C-536/99), Robert Eder (C-535/99), Hartmut Ramsauer                        Abfall Service AG (ASA) and Bundesminister für Umwelt,
(C-537/99 and C-538/99), Harald Kronberger (C-539/99),                     Jugend und Familie, on the interpretation of Council Regu-
Erich Morianz (C-540/99) and Bürgermeister der Landes-                     lation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision
hauptstadt Salzburg, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes                  and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the


title: Joined Cases C-450/07 and C-451/07: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 November 2009 (References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy)) — Roche SpA (C-450/07), Federazione nazionale unitaria dei Titolari di Farmacia italiani (Federfarma) (C-451/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 89/105/EEC — Transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use — Article 4 — Price freeze — Price reduction)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/12

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 9 November 2009 (References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy)) — Roche SpA (C-450/07), Federazione nazionale unitaria dei Titolari di Farmacia italiani (Federfarma) (C-451/07) v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute
   (Joined Cases C-450/07 and C-451/07) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 89/105/EEC - Transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use - Article 4 - Price freeze - Price reduction)
   2010/C 51/19
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Roche SpA

      Defendants: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8) — Price freeze imposed on medicinal products — Procedures to follow in the case of a price reduction

      Operative part

               1.

               Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems is to be interpreted as meaning that, provided the requirements laid down by that provision are met, the competent authorities of a Member State may adopt general measures reducing the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products, even if the adoption of those measures is not preceded by a freeze on those prices.

               2.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as meaning that, provided the requirements laid down by that provision are met, the adoption of measures reducing the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products is possible more than once a year and for several years.

               3.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude measures controlling the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products from being adopted on the basis of predicted expenditure, provided that the requirements laid down by that provision are met and that the predictions are based on objective and verifiable data.

               4.

               Article 4(1) of Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as meaning that it is for the Member States to determine, in compliance with the objective of transparency pursued by that directive and the requirements laid down by that provision, the criteria on the basis of which the review of the macro-economic conditions referred to in that provision is to be conducted and that those criteria may consist in pharmaceutical expenditure alone, in health expenditure overall or even in other types of expenditure.

               5.

               Article 4(2) of Directive 89/105 is to be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the Member States must, in all cases, provide for the possibility for an undertaking, which is concerned by a measure freezing or reducing the prices of all, or of certain categories of, medicinal products, of applying for a derogation from the price imposed pursuant to such measure;

                           —

                           they are to ensure that a reasoned decision on any such application is adopted, and

                           —

                           the genuine participation of the undertaking concerned consists, first, in the submission of an adequate statement of the particular reasons justifying its application for derogation and, second, in the provision of detailed additional information if the information supporting the application is inadequate.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 8.12.2007.


title: Case T-348/08: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2011 — Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Sodium chlorate market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Action for annulment — Market-sharing — Price-fixing — Body of evidence — Date of the evidence — Statements of competitors — Acknowledgment — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2011 — Aragonesas Industrias y Energía v Commission
   (Case T-348/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Sodium chlorate market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Action for annulment - Market-sharing - Price-fixing - Body of evidence - Date of the evidence - Statements of competitors - Acknowledgment - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances)
   2011/C 355/23
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Aragonesas Industrias y Energía, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I.S. Forrester QC, and K. Struckmann, P. Lindfelt and J. Garcia-Nieto Esteva, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, J. Bourke and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application, primarily, for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium chlorate) to the extent to which it concerns Aragonesas Industrias y Energía and, in the alternative, for the annulment or a substantial reduction of the fine imposed on it in that decision

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 1(g) of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium chlorate) in so far as the Commission of the European Communities found therein an infringement by Aragonesas Industrias y Energía, SAU, from 16 December 1996 to 27 January 1998 and from 1 January 1999 to 9 February 2000;

               2.

               Annuls Article 2(f) of Decision C(2008) 2626 final in so far as its sets the amount of the fine at EUR 9 900 000;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders Aragonesas Industrias y Energía to bear a third of its own costs and half of those incurred by the Commission;

               5.

               Orders the Commission to bear half of its own costs and two thirds of those incurred by Aragonesas Industrias y Energía.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


30.5.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                               C 166/13
       Removal from the register of Case C-56/97 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-352/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/28)                                                     (98/C 166/32)
By order of 6 March 1998 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                   By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Case C-56/97: Commission of the European Communities              removal from the register of Case C-352/97: Commission
v French Republic.                                                of the European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (1)
                        (98/C 166/29)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-353/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/33)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-339/95 (reference for         By order of 23 March 1998 the President of the Court of
a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Queen's Bench Divison, Commercial Court): Compagnia               removal from the register of Case C-353/97: Commission
di Navigazione Marittima and Others v Compagnie                   of the European Communities v Ireland.
Maritime Belge and Others.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 351 of 30.12.1995.
      Removal from the register of Case C-310/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-101/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/30)
                                                                                (98/C 166/34)
By order of 11 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the               By order of 26 March 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-310/96: Commission            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of the European Communities v Kingdom of the                      removal from the register of Case C-101/97: Commission
Netherlands.                                                      of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (1)
                        (98/C 166/31)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-286/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 166/35)
By order of 20 March 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-264/97 (reference for         By order of 30 March 1998 the President of the Fifth
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo            Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
per la Sardegna): SocietaÁ Appia Srl v Comune di Cagliari         Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
and SocietaÁ Cagliari Calcio SpA.                                 Case     C-286/96:     Commission     of the    European
                                                                  Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 294 of 5.10.1996.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 September 2000 in Case T-80/97: Starway SA v Council of the European Union (Extension of an anti-dumping duty — Exemption — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Assembly operation — Burden of proof — Statement of reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
6.1.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 4/5
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Action brought on 6 September 2000 by Fondazione
                                                                          Opera S. Maria della Carità against Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                      of 26 September 2000
in Case T-80/97: Starway SA v Council of the European                                              (Case T-234/00)
                               Union (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 4/07)
(Extension of an anti-dumping duty — Exemption — Action
for annulment — Admissibility — Assembly operation —
Burden of proof — Statement of reasons — Manifest error                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                           of assessment)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                            (2001/C 4/06)                                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 6 September 2000 by Fondazione
                                                                          Opera S. Maria della Carità, represented by Franca Gajulli and
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Isabella Gianniotti, of the Venice Bar.
In Case T-80/97: Starway SA, established in Luynes (France),
represented by J.-F. Bellis and P. De Baere, of the Brussels Bar,         The applicant claims that the Court should:
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
L. Lorang, 3 Rue de la Chapelle, against Council of the                   —     annul Articles 1, 2, 5 and 6 of Commission Decision
European Union (Agents: R. Torrent, A. Tanca, S. Marquardt                      2000/394/EEC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in
and P. Bentley) supported by Commission of the European                         Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security
Communities (Agent: N. Khan) — application for annulment                        contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995,
of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of 10 January                  or annul Articles 1, 2, 5 and 6 thereof, and declare
1997 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by                      applicable the exemption provided for by Article 86(2) of
Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 on bicycles originating in the                      the Treaty (services of general economic interest) to the
People’s Republic of China to imports of certain bicycle parts                  applicant;
from the People’s Republic of China, and levying the extended
duty on such imports registered under Regulation (EC)
No 703/96 (OJ 1997 L 16, p. 55, corrigendum (Spanish and                  —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
French versions only) published in OJ 1997 L 95, p. 30)
— the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, V. Tiili,
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
J. Azizi, M. Jaeger and P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
26 September 2000, in which it:                                           The decision contested in the present case is the same as that
                                                                          in Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mare Azzurro and Others (1).
1.    Annuls Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 71/97 of
      10 January 1997 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty
      imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 2474/93 on bicycles                  The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
      originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of         Cases T-231/00 Adriatica di Navigazione v Commission (1).
      certain bicycle parts from the People’s Republic of China, and
      levying the extended duty on such imports registered under
      Regulation (EC) No 703/96, in so far as it concerns imports         The applicant refutes the charge that there is a constituent
      of essential bicycle parts by the applicant between 20 April        element of aid in the present case, pointing out that its
      1996 and 18 April 1997;                                             activities consist overall in the provision of complementary
                                                                          services in the public interest carried out, under arrangements
2.    Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those           agreed with the local authorities, whenever the latter, whose
      incurred by the applicant;                                          responsibility they are, are unable to do so directly themselves.
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                          (1) Not yet published.
(1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.97.


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 November 1999 in Case C-365/97: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC — Management of waste)

text:
5.2.2000                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 34/7
     75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the               goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
     laws of the Member States relating to the application of the             infrastructures (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 32) — the Court (Sixth
     principle of equal pay for men and women, and Article 4(1) of            Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting as
     Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1987 on the                    President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
     progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment           Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
     for men and women in matters of social security, regulations             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
     which impose conditions on married female workers which are              on 28 October 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
     not imposed on their married male counterparts in respect of the
     grant to employees of family or marriage allowances, which are           In order to determine whether a motor vehicle or articulated vehicle
     taken into account in determining their income for the purposes          combination is intended exclusively for the carriage of goods by road,
     of calculating pension rights, the Hellenic Republic has failed to       within the meaning of the fourth indent of Article 2 of Council
     fulfil its obligations under the said provisions of Community law.       Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by
                                                                              Member States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of
2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                             goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
                                                                              infrastructures, reference must be made to the general purpose for
                                                                              which that vehicle is intended, irrespective of the use to which it may
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                                                                              be put in an individual case.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 28 October 1999                                                          of 9 November 1999
in Case C-193/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling made                     in Case C-365/97: Commission of the European Communi-
by the Oberlandesgericht Köln): proceedings challenging                                             ties v Italian Republic (1)
 an administrative fine brought by Alois Pfennigmann (1)
                                                                              (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directives 75/442/EEC and
(Directive 93/89/EEC — Carriage of goods by road — Taxes                                   91/156/EEC — Management of waste)
on vehicles — Charges for the use of certain roads — Heavy
                              goods vehicles)
                                                                                (2000/C 34/13)
                             (2000/C 34/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                      (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-365/97: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                              (Agent: P. Stancanelli assisted by M. Merola) v Italian Republic
In Case C-193/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                 (Agents: Professor U. Leanza, assisted by P. G. Ferri) — Appli-
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Oberlandesgericht                   cation for a declaration that by not applying correctly and in
Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) (Germany) for a                         full, in regard to the San Rocco riverbed, Council Directive
preliminary ruling in the proceedings challenging an adminis-                 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39),
trative fine brought by Alois Pfennigmann and pending before                  the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
that court — on the interpretation of Article 2(1) of the                     EC Treaty and under Articles 4, 5, 7 (first indent) and 10 of
Agreement of 9 February 1994 between the Governments of                       Directive 75/442 or the corresponding provisions, as amended
the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Belgium,                      by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991
the Kingdom of Denmark, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg                         L 78, p. 32) — the Court, composed of G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the levying of                          President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward and
charges for the use of certain roads by heavy goods vehicles                  R. Schintgen, (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
(Bundesgesetzblatt [Federal Gazette] 1994, Part II, p. 1768) and              J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm (Rappor-
of the fourth indent of Article 2 of Council Directive                        teur), Judges, Advocate General: J. Mischo, L. Hewlett, Adminis-
93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by Member                     trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November
States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of                  1999, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 34/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             5.2.2000
1. Declares that, by not taking the measures necessary to ensure           1. A member of the family of a migrant worker of Moroccan
    that the waste discharged into the watercourse bisecting the San           nationality, where that worker has acquired the nationality of his
    Rocco valley is disposed of without risk to human health or harm           host Member State before the date on which the said member of
    to the environment and by not taking the measures necessary to             his family began to live with him there and applied for a social
    ensure that waste stored in a fly-tip be handed over to a private          security benefit under the legislation of that State, cannot rely on
    or public waste collector or a waste disposal undertaking, Italy           Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement between the Euro-
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of          pean Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco signed
    Article 4 and the first indent of Article 8 of Council Directive           in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the
    75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council                 Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of
    Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991.                                     26 September 1978, as a ground for invoking that worker’s
                                                                               Moroccan nationality for the purposes of obtaining the benefit of
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application.                                 the principle of equal treatment in the field of social security laid
                                                                               down in that provision.
3. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                               Such a member of the family of a Moroccan migrant worker,
                                                                               where that worker also has the nationality of the host Member
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
                                                                               State, could invoke his Moroccan nationality for the purposes of
                                                                               the application of Article 41(1) of the Agreement, solely on the
                                                                               basis of the law of the Member State concerned, which it is for
                                                                               the national court alone, however, to interpret and apply in the
                                                                               proceedings before it.
                                                                           2. The term ‘members of the family’, within the meaning of
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                         Article 41(1) of the Agreement, of a Moroccan migrant worker
                                                                               extends to relatives in the ascending line of that worker and of
                                                                               his spouse who live with him in the host Member State.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                      of 11 November 1999                                  (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
in Case C-179/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles): Belgian State v Fatna
                              Mesbah (1)
(EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement — Article 41(1) —
Principle of non-discrimination in the field of social security
                    — Scope ratione personae)                                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
                           (2000/C 34/14)                                                             (First Chamber)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                 of 14 October 1999
                                                                           in Case C-437/98 P: Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     SA (Infrisa) v Commission of the European Communi-
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                           ties (1)
In Case C-179/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              (Appeal — Action declared manifestly unfounded — Sani-
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour du                         tary policy — Protective Measures — Decision 95/119/EC)
Travail de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels), Belgium, for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Belgian State and Fatna Mesbah — on the                                                  (2000/C 34/15)
interpretation of Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement
between the European Economic Community and the
Kingdom of Morocco signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and                                       (Language of the case: Spanish)
approved on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 (OJ 1976 L 264,
p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber acting for the
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
President of the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragne-
malm, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a            In Case C-437/98 P: Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera
judgment on 11 November 1999, in which it has ruled:                       SA (Infrisa), established in Bermeo, Spain, represented by


title: Case C-442/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations — EEC-Hungary Association Agreement — Subsequent verification — Failure to comply with rules on origin — Decision of the authorities of the exporting State — Appeal — Commission inspection mission — Customs duties — Post-clearance recovery — Own resources — Making available — Default interest)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 July 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-442/08) (1)

   (Failure of a State to fulfil its obligations - EEC-Hungary Association Agreement - Subsequent verification - Failure to comply with rules on origin - Decision of the authorities of the exporting State - Appeal - Commission inspection mission - Customs duties - Post-clearance recovery - Own resources - Making available - Default interest)
   2010/C 234/11
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and B. Conte, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and B. Klein, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1), and the corresponding provisions of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1) — Late payment of the Communities’ own resources in the event of subsequent collection of import tariffs and refusal to pay default interest — Obligation of the importing Member State not to delay implementation of the procedure for the subsequent collection of import tariffs for goods whose certificate of origin was revoked by the authorities of the exporting State — Obligation of the importing Member State to pay default interest due in the event of late entry of the own resources payable in respect of tariff claims time-barred as a result of the inactivity of those authorities during the legal proceedings brought in the exporting State for the annulment of the decisions revoking the certificates of origin

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by allowing customs claims to become time-barred, despite the receipt of a mutual assistance communication, paying the own resources owed in this connection late and refusing to pay the default interest payable, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 6 and 9 to 11 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources and the same articles of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities’ own resources;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Case T-637/14: Action brought on 27 August 2014 — noon Copenhagen v OHIM — Wurster Diamonds (noon)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/29

         Action brought on 27 August 2014 — noon Copenhagen v OHIM — Wurster Diamonds (noon)
   (Case T-637/14)
   2014/C 361/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: noon Copenhagen A/S (Løsning, Denmark) (represented by: M. Zöbisch, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wurster Diamonds GmbH (Pforzheim, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2014 given in Case R 955/2013-4.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘noon’ for goods and services in Class 14 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 2 15  556

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘noor’ for goods in Class 14

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case C-152/06: Action brought on  21 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/31

         Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-152/06)
   (2006/C 131/57)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and K. Nyberg, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, with regard to the province of Åland, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (1) or in any case by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 13 August 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 37, 13.02.2003, p. 19.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 15 March 1995 in the case of Harnas & Helm v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Case C-80/95)

text:
13 . 5 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 119/9
4 . In the event that question 3 is answered in the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
     affirmative, does that obligation have direct effect, that        Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 15 March 1995
     is to say, can it be invoked by an individual before a            in the case of Harnas & Helm v. Staatssecretaris van
     national court and must it be applied by the national                                          Financiën
     court even though it was not in fact invoked in the                                       ( Case C-80/95 )
     matter pending before that court ?
                                                                                ( 95/C 119/19
(!) OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7. 1985 , p . 40 .
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad
                                                                       der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
                                                                       15 March 1995, which was received at the Couft Regfefty
                                                                       on 17 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der              Harnas & Helm v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, on the
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 10 March 1995 in              following questions :
the case of 1 . B. A. J. Hendrikman and 2. M. Feyen v.
                Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH                            1 . Are the mere acquisition of ownership in and the
                           (Case C-78/95 )                                 holding of bonds — claims embodied in marketable
                            ( 95/C 119/18 )                                securities —, activities which are not subservient to any
                                                                           other business activity, and the receipt of income
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     therefrom to be regarded as economic activities within
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad                        the meaning of Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Sixth Directive ?
der Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of
10 March 1 995 , which was received at the Court Registry              2 . If that question has to be answered in the affirmative,
on 16 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 should those activities be regarded as transactions,
1 . B. A. J. Hendrikman and 2. M. Feyen v. Magenta Druck                   within the meaning of Article 13B ( d ) ( 1 ) or ( 5 ) of the
& Verlag GmbH, on the following questions:                                 Sixth Directive, which, in so far as they relate to bonds
                                                                           issued by a body established outside the Community,
1 . Must Article 29 of the Brussels              Convention be             confer an entitlement to deduct the input tax imposed
     interpreted as meaning that the court "of the State in                on the possession and management of the bonds as a
     which recognition is sought must refrain from making                  result of Article 17 ( 3 ) (c ) of the Sixth Directive ?
     any inquiry into the question as to whether the
     defendant to the proceedings conducted in the State in            3 . If question 2 has to be answered in the affirmative, in the
     which judgment was given was validly represented, even                event that a taxable person carrying out the activities
     if the court of the State in which judgment was given                 referred to in the foregoing questions is also the holder
     made no ruling in that regard ?                                       of shares, which, according to that which the Court of
                                                                           Justice held in particular in its judgment of 22 June 1994
2 . ( a ) Must Article 27 ( 1 ) of the Brussels Convention be              in Case C-333/91 Satam SA, fall outside the scope of
           interpreted as precluding recognition of a judgment             value added tax, can the input tax charged to that
           given in another Contracting State where the                    taxable person be deducted in full or is the input tax
           defendant to the relevant proceedings was not                   relating to the possession of the shares debarred from
           validly represented and had no knowledge of the                 being deducted ?
           proceedings, even if he later had cognizance of the
           judgment which was given and availed himself in             4 . If question 3 must be answered in the latter sense,
           that regard of none of the legal remedies afforded              according to what yardstick must be the amount
           by the procedural law of the State in which                     disqualified from deduction be calculated ?
           judgment was given ?
     ( b ) Is it relevant in this connection that the time within
           which the legal remedy must be applied is one
           month from the day on which the defendant has
           cognizance of the judgment which has been                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
           given ?                                                     Genova, Sezione Prima Civile, by order of that court of
                                                                       3 March 1995 in the case of Intercod Sri v. Amministrazione
3 . Must Article 27 (2 ) of the Brussels Convention be                                    delle Finanze dello Stato
     interpreted as meaning that that provision is also                                        ( Case C-81/95 )
     applicable in a case in which, although the defendant
     was not declared to be in default of appearance , the                                       ( 95/C 119/20 )
     document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent
     document was not duly served on or notified to him in             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     sufficient time and the defendant was not lawfully                European Communities by order of the Tribunale di
     represented in the proceedings ?                                  Genova , Sezione Prima Civile (District Court, Genoa, First
                                                                       Civil Section ), of 3 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 17 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 June 2005 in Case C-17/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven Vereniging voor Energie, Milieu en Water and Others v Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en toezicht energie (Internal market in electricity — Preferential access to the system for cross-border transmission of electricity — Undertaking previously responsible for the operation of services of general economic interest — Long-term contracts existing prior to the liberalisation of the market — Directive 96/92/EC — Principle of non-discrimination — Principles of the protection of legitimate expectation and of legal certainty)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 7 June 2005
   in Case C-17/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven Vereniging voor Energie, Milieu en Water and Others v Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en toezicht energie (1)

   (Internal market in electricity - Preferential access to the system for cross-border transmission of electricity - Undertaking previously responsible for the operation of services of general economic interest - Long-term contracts existing prior to the liberalisation of the market - Directive 96/92/EC - Principle of non-discrimination - Principles of the protection of legitimate expectation and of legal certainty)
   (2005/C 182/04)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-17/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (Netherlands), made by decision of 13 November 2002, received at the Court on 16 January 2003, in the proceedings between Vereniging voor Energie, Milieu en Water, Amsterdam Power Exchange Spotmarket BV, Eneco NV and Directeur van de Dienst uitvoering en toezicht energie, intervening party: Nederlands Elektriciteit Administratiekantoor BV, previously Samenwerkende Elektriciteits Produktiebedrijven NV — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the, Registrar, gave a judgment on 7 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Articles 7(5) and 16 of Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity are not limited to covering technical rules but must be construed as applying to all discrimination.

               2.

               Those articles preclude national measures that grant an undertaking preferential capacity for the cross-border transmission of electricity, whether those measures derive from the system operator, the controller of system management or the legislature, in the case where such measures have not been authorised within the framework of the procedure set out in Article 24 of Directive 96/92.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 2.03.2003.


title: Case T-34/07: Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2010 — Goncharov v OHIM — DSB (DSBW) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark DSBW — Earlier Community word mark DSB — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 January 2010 — Goncharov v OHIM — DSB (DSBW)
   (Case T-34/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark DSBW - Earlier Community word mark DSB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 63/80
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Karen Goncharov (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and A. Späth, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: DSB (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: F. González Diáz and T. Graf, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2006 (Case R 1330/2005-2), relating to opposition proceedings between DSB and Mr K. Goncharov

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Karen Goncharov to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case F-55/11: Action brought on 9 May 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/56

         Action brought on 9 May 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-55/11)
   2011/C 252/125
   Language of the cse: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the dispute

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to reduce the education allowance paid to the applicant by reason of the fact that his son receives financial aid from a Member State in the form of a bursary and a loan.

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision to reduce the ‘education allowance’ paid to the applicant;

               —

               annul the decision concerning the retrospective retention of EUR 939,96, as shown by the applicant’s pay slip for October 2010;

               —

               annul the decision concerning the retrospective retention of EUR 936,96, as shown by the applicant’s pay slip for November 2010;

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 17 February 2011 expressly dismissing the complaint;

               —

               repay to the applicant, with interest, the sums withheld from him;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-227/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Redpur v EUIPO — Redwell Manufaktur (Redpur) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Redpur — Earlier EU figurative mark redwell INFRAROT HEIZUNGEN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Redpur v EUIPO — Redwell Manufaktur (Redpur)
   (Case T-227/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Redpur - Earlier EU figurative mark redwell INFRAROT HEIZUNGEN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 038/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Redpur GmbH (Hayingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Schiller, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Redwell Manufaktur GmbH (Rotenturm an der Pinka, Austria) (represented by C. Gassauer-Fleissner, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 February 2015 (Case R 678/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Redpur and Redwell Manufaktur.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Redpur GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Case C-292/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Regensburg — Germany) — G v Cornelius de Visser (Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Public notification of legal documents — Lack of known domicile or place of abode of the defendant in the territory of a Member State — Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ — Infringement of the right to protection of personality liable to have been committed by the publication of photographs on the internet — Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Regensburg — Germany) — G v Cornelius de Visser
   (Case C-292/10) (1)

   (Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Public notification of legal documents - Lack of known domicile or place of abode of the defendant in the territory of a Member State - Jurisdiction ‘in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’ - Infringement of the right to protection of personality liable to have been committed by the publication of photographs on the internet - Place where the harmful event occurred or may occur)
   2012/C 133/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Regensburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: G

      Defendant: Cornelius de Visser

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Regensburg — Interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 6 TEU in conjunction wíth the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1), of Articles 4(1), 5, point 3, and 26(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) and of Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1) — National legislation allowing in certain circumstances for public notification of legal documents to the defendant and allowing a default decision to be taken on the basis of a writ notified in that manner — Applicability of the rules on jurisdiction in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 in the absence of a known domicile or place of residence of the defendant in the territory of a Member State — Determination of the jurisdiction of the courts and of the law applicable to an action brought in respect of an infringement of personality rights which may have been committed by the publication of photographs on an internet site edited by a person whose domicile is unknown

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the application of Article 5(3) of that regulation to an action for liability arising from the operation of an Internet site against a defendant who is probably a European Union citizen but whose whereabouts are unknown if the court seised of the case does not hold firm evidence to support the conclusion that the defendant is in fact domiciled outside the European Union;

               2.

               European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the issue of judgment by default against a defendant on whom, given that it is impossible to locate him, the document instituting proceedings has been served by public notice under national law, provided that the court seised of the matter has first satisfied itself that all investigations required by the principles of diligence and good faith have been undertaken to trace the defendant;

               3.

               European Union law must be interpreted as precluding certification as a European Enforcement Order, within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, of a judgment by default issued against a defendant whose address is unknown;

               4.

               Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market does not apply to a situation where the place of establishment of the information society services provider is unknown, since application of that provision is subject to identification of the Member State in whose territory the service provider in question is actually established.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case F-132/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/23

         Action brought on 5 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-132/11)
   2012/C 65/43
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the implied decision of the Commission rejecting the applicant’s request (i) to inform him in writing of the total number of working days of leave accrued in the years prior to 2005 and in the period from 2005 to 2010 to which he was entitled on the date on which he submitted his request and the number of working days leave to which he would be entitled by the end of 2010; (ii) to take all those days leave; and (iii) to notify him of any grounds on which those request may be refused.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, issued by — or, in any event, attributable to — the Commission rejecting the claims set out in the request of 25 September 2010 which was sent to the appointing authority;

               —

               In so far as necessary, declare that there is no legal basis for, or annul, Note Ares(2011) 217354 as registered on 28 February 2011, received by the applicant on a date not before 6 April 2011;

               —

               Annul the decision issued by the Commission — whatever the form in which it was adopted — rejecting the claims set out in the complaint of 25 April 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 18 December 1997 in Case C-361/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 92/49/EEC - Direct insurance other than life assurance)

text:
20.2.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 55/9
order to transpose that Directive, the Federal Republic of            Confederation concerning direct insurance other than life
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third          assurance (OJ L 205, 27.7.1991, p. 48) or, in the
paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and                         alternative, by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
Article 34(1) of the Directive Ð the Court (Sixth                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),                     under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),
President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn,            composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M.
J. L. Murray and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; N. Fennelly,                  Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), P. Jann
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                    and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L.
judgment on 16 December 1997, in which it:                            Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                      judgment on 18 December 1997, in which it:
1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period all the laws and regulations necessary to                 1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     comply with Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June                    period the laws, regulations and administrative
     1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public                  provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     supply contracts, the Federal Republic of Germany has                 91/371/EEC of 20 June 1991 on the implementation
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 34(1) of               of the Agreement between the European Economic
     that Directive;                                                       Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning
                                                                           direct insurance other than life assurance, the
                                                                           Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under that Directive;
2. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs.
                                                                      2. orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 18 December 1997
                                                                                of 18 December 1997
       in Case C-360/95: Commission of the European
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)                       in   Case    C-361/95: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (1)
(Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
Directive 91/371/EEC Ð Implementation of the                          (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Failure to transpose
Agreement between the European Economic Community                     Directive 92/49/EEC Ð Direct insurance other than life
and the Swiss Confederation on direct insurance other                                            assurance)
                       than life assurance
                                                                                (98/C 55/16)
                          (98/C 55/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-361/95: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities (Agents: Dimitrios Gouloussis and Blanca
In Case C-360/95: Commission of the European                          VilaÂ Costa) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto JoseÂ
Communities (Agents: Dimitrios Gouloussis and Blanca                  Navarro GonzaÂlez and Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) Ð
VilaÂ Costa) v. Kingdom of Spain (Agents: Alberto JoseÂ               application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and
Navarro GonzaÂlez and Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) Ð                    bring into force within the prescribed period the laws,
application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt and           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
bring into force within the prescribed period the laws,               comply with Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
comply with Council Directive 91/371/EEC of 20 June                   administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other
1991 on the implementation of the Agreement between                   than life assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC
the European Economic Community and the Swiss                         and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance Directive)
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/10               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
(OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 1) or, in the alternative, by               88 of 21 September 1988 (OJ L 298, 31.10.1988, p. 1),
failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of             Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2886/89 of 2 August
Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC              1989 (OJ L 282, 21.10.1989, p. 1) and Commission
Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.                  Regulation (EEC) No 2472/90 of 31 July 1990 (OJ L 247,
Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C.                10.9.1990, p. 1) Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed
Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), P. Jann and L. Sevón,              of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D. A. O.
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                 Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
18 December 1997, in which it:                                       for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 December
                                                                     1997, in which it has ruled:
1. declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                 Image processing, as it can be carried out with an
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive           automatic data-processing machine unit which includes,
     92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of                inter alia, an analogue/digital converter, a high-quality
     laws, regulations and administrative provisions                 graphics processor and a digital/analogue converter, is not
     relating to direct insurance other than life assurance          to be regarded as the performance of a specific function'
     and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/                  for the purposes of the last paragraph of Note 5(B) to
     EEC (third non-life insurance Directive), the Kingdom           Chapter 84 of the Combined Nomenclature of the
     of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that        Common Customs Tariff in Annex I to Council
     Directive;                                                      Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the
                                                                     tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common
                                                                     Customs Tariff, as amended by the Annexes to
2. orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                     Commission Regulations (EEC) No 3174/88 of
                                                                     21 September 1988, (EEC) No 2886/89 of 2 August 1989
(1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.                                              and (EEC) No 2472/90 of 31 July 1990.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 31, 3.2.1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (First Chamber)
                    of 18 December 1997                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-382/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                   (Fifth Chamber)
the Bundesfinanzhof): Techex Computer + Grafik
                                                                                of 18 December 1997
        Vertriebs GmbH v. Hauptzollamt München (1)
                                                                     in Case C-384/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Common Customs Tariff Ð Tariff headings Ð Tariff
                                                                     the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg): Landboden-
classification of a Vista' board electronic component
                                                                        Agrardienste GmbH & Co. KG v. Finanzamt Calau (1)
intended for image processing and capable of being used
as a graphics card in a computer Ð Classification in the             (VAT Ð Supply of services Ð National compensation for
                  Combined Nomenclature)                                       the extensification of potato production)
                          (98/C 55/17)                                                        (98/C 55/18)
               (Language of the case: German)                                       (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-382/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal                   In Case C-384/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
Finance Court), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings          of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht des Landes
pending before that court between Techex Computer +                  Brandenburg (Finance Court of the Land of Brandenburg),
Grafik Vertriebs GmbH and Hauptzollamt München Ð                     Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
on the interpretation of the Combined Nomenclature of                pending before that court between Landboden-
the Common Customs Tariff in Annex I to Council                      Agrardienste GmbH & Co. KG and Finanzamt Calau Ð
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the                   on the interpretation of Articles 6(1), 11(A)(1)(a) and
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common                12(3)(a) of and Annex H to the Sixth Council Directive
Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1), as amended by             77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
the Annexes to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3174/                  laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð


title: Appeal brought on 3 May 1996 by Roberto Galtieri against the judgment delivered on 27 February 1996 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-235/94 between R. Galtieri and the European Parliament (Case C-150/96 P)

text:
No C 197/10           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             6 . 7 . 96
26 February 1996 (*) and order the Commission to pay the                    of public health. The ministerial order of 7 February
costs .                                                                      1996 ( 2 ) constitutes a supplementary legal guarantee of
                                                                            this .
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                       — Breach of Article 103 of Council Decision 91 /482/EEC
— Breach of Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Directive 92/46/EEC laying             on the association of the overseas countries and
    down the health rules for the production and placing on                 territories with the European Economic Community
   the market of raw milk, heat-treated milk and
   milk-based products                                                      As a result of the abovementioned ministerial order the
                                                                            authorities of the Dutch Antilles guarantee a level of
   The contested decision is based on irrelevant facts,                     protection identical to that provided by the relevant
   particularly in regard to the veterinary situation. As                   Community legislation. The requirements for the
   regards the processing of dairy products in the Dutch                    application of Article 103 are not therefore satisfied
   Antillean Dairy Industry, the inspectors ' report provided               because the export from the Dutch Antilles concerns
    for under Article 23 (4 ) of Directive 92/46/EEC                        exclusively products made from milk or milk products
   concludes that dairy products originating in the                         from Member States of the European Community.
    Community are processed in accordance with that
    Directive .                                                             In contrast with countries on the list of third countries
                                                                            established by Decision 94/70/EC or Decision
— Breach       of Article    31     of   Directive    92/46/EEC;             95/340/EC, the Dutch Antilles offer guarantees
    alternatively, breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty                   regarding Chapter II of Directive 92/46/EEC . The
                                                                            failure, even so, to place the Dutch Antilles on the list of
   Although the Standing Veterinary Committee ( SVC )                       third countries for the purposes of Directive 92/46/EEC
    discussed the veterinary inspectors' report at its meeting              constitutes arbitrary discrimination . The contested
    on 13 and 14 February 1996 , it made no                                 decision is therefore contrary to Article 103 ( 2 ) of
    recommendations .       As     far   as   the    Netherlands            Decision 91 /482/EEC .
    Government is aware, a draft of the contested decision
    has also not been submitted to the SVC, as required by
    Article 31 of Directive 92/46/EEC .                                (*) Letter to the Minister President of the Dutch Antilles stating
                                                                            that the Dutch Antilles is not included in the list of third
                                                                            countries established in accordance with Article 23 of Council
— Breach of the principle that a party has a right to be                    Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the health
    heard .                                                                 rules for the production and placing on the market of raw milk,
                                                                            heat-treated milk and milk-based products ( OJ No L 268, 14 . 9 .
— Breach of the principle that measures must be                             1992 , p . 1 ).
    meticulously prepared .                                            (2 ) Order prohibiting the export of dairy products from the Dutch
                                                                            Antilles to the customs territory of the European Community
                                                                            without a licence from the Minister for public health and
— Breach of Article 2 ( 2 ) of the WTO agreement on the                     environmental hygiene. A licence is issued only if the production
    application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures                      has taken place in accordance with the procedures and in
                                                                            establishments equivalent to those described in Chapter II of
    The contested decision infringes the prohibition on                     Directive 92/46/EEC . Moreover, that licence is issued
    adopting sanitary measures in such a way that they may                  exclusively for products produced from materials originating in
    constitute a disguised restriction on international trade .             the Community or at least in countries on the list drawn up
                                                                            pursuant to Directive 92/46/EEC.
    The contested decision amounts to a complete
    prohibition on the import of dairy products originating
    in the Dutch Antilles, even though, according to the
    Commission's findings, the products comply with the
    applicable general principles and rules of Directive
     92/46/EEC .
— Breach of the principle of proportionality
                                                                       Appeal brought on 3 May 1996 by Roberto Galtieri against
    Antillean domestic milk production is negligibly small             the judgment delivered on 27 February 1996 by the First
     and is consumed exclusively on the local market. The              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities in Case T-235 /94 between R. Galtieri and the
     establishment inspected uses hydrated milk fat and milk
     powder from the Community as the raw material for the                                    European Parliament ( J )
     preparation of its products. To apply to the Dutch                                          (Case C-150/96 P)
     Antilles the current requirements regarding the standard                                      ( 96/C 197/19 )
     and enforcement of veterinary legislation, which are
     relevant exclusively in the case of the use of milk from
     the establishment's own dairy herd or at least from dairy          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 February
     cattle elsewhere in the Dutch Antilles, is thus not                1996 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
     necessary in order to achieve the aim of Directive                 the European Communities in Case T-235/94 between R.
     92/46/EEC, namely to ensure a high level of protection             Galtieri and the European Parliament was brought before
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 7. 96            LM                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 197/ 11
the Court ofJustice of the European Communities on 3 May                    shipping register to a vessel which is owned in whole or
1996 by Roberto Galtieri, represented by Pietro Como, with                  in part by the Government, a Minister of State, an Irish
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of S.                 citizen or an Irish body corporate, Ireland has failed to
Oostvogels, 13 rue Aldringen .                                             comply with Articles 6 , 48 , 52 and 58 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           and Article 7 of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
The appellant claims that the Court should :                               No 1251 /70/EEC ( 1 ) of 29 June 1970 and Article 7 of
                                                                            Council     Directive    75/34/EEC     of  17    December
( a) declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                        1974 ( 2 );
( b ) reverse the judgment of the Court of First Instance             2 , order Ireland to pay the costs of these proceedings .
       ( First Chamber );
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments:
(c) declare the original action brought by the appellant well
       founded ;                                                      The Commission contents that where a vessel of whatever
                                                                      type it may be is an instrument for pursuing an economic
( d ) annul the decision of the Personnel Division of the             activity, Ireland has infringed Article 52 of the EC Treaty by
       European Parliament of 19 January 1994 to recover the          restricting registration of those vessels in the Irish register
       sum of Lfrs 267 628 (as amended by the European                and the right to fly the Irish flag to those which are owned or
       Parliament's letter of 21 June 1994 );                         shared by the Government, a Minister of State, an Irish
                                                                      citizen or an Irish body corporate .
(e ) order the European Parliament to reimburse forthwith
       the sums previously deducted from the appellant's              Furthermore, the requirement laid down by Section 2 of the
       salary from February 1994 onwards;                             Mercantile Marine Act ( 1955 ) that companies should be
                                                                      established under and subject to Irish law and have their
( f) order the European Parliament to pay default interest            principal place of business in Ireland impedes the right of
       from February 1994, together with costs;                       companies which fulfil the conditions of Article 58 of the EC
                                                                      Treaty and are thereby entitled to exercise freedom of
(g) order the European Parliament to pay Lfrs 100 000 by              establishment in order to manage and operate vessels by way
       way of compensation for the non-material damage                of an agency, branch or subsidiary. As to the condition
       caused by the implementation of the abovementioned             imposed on companies to have their principal place of
       decision of 19 January 1994.                                   business in Ireland, the Commission is of the opinion that
                                                                      this condition unjustifiably precludes a company which is
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                      registered in another Member State from operating a vessel
                                                                      on the basis of a real and continuous representation situated
Infringement of Community law by the Court of First                   onshore in Ireland .
Instance, particularly as regards the assessment as to
whether the payments forming the object of the contested              Where the vessel is not an instrument for pursuing an
decision to recover the sum aforesaid were patently                   economic activity but is rather used as a pleasure craft, the
undue .                                                               Commission considers that, in providing for such
                                                                      restrictions as those mentioned above, Ireland has infringed
(M OJ No C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 , p. 7 .                               Articles 6, 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 of
                                                                      Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1251/70 and Article 7 of
                                                                      Council Directive 75/34/EEC .
                                                                      (!) OJ No L 142, 30. 6 . 1970, p. 24; EE 05 Fl , p. 93 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ No L 14, 20. 1 . 1975, p. 10; EE 06 Fl , p. 183 .
Action brought on 6 May 1996 by the Commission of the
              European Communities against Ireland
                         ( Case C-151/96 )
                           ( 96/C 197/20 )
                                                                      Appeal brought on 7 May 1996 by Jan Robert de Rijk
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of             against the judgment delivered on 7 March 1996 by the Fifth
Justice of the European Communities on 6 May 1 996 by the             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
 Commission of the European Communities, represented by               Communities in Case T-362/94 between Jan Robert de Rijk
 Frank Benyon and Xavier Lewis, Legal Adviser and Member                  and the Commission of the European Communities (*)
 of the Legal Service respectively acting as Agent, with an
                                                                                (Case C-1 53/96 P)
 address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
 Gômez de la Cruz, Member of its Legal Service, Wagner                                           ( 96/C 197/21 )
 Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 March 1996
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                          by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities in Case T-362/94 between Jan
 1 , declare that, by maintaining in force laws, regulations           Robert de Rijk and the Commission of the European
      and administrative provisions which limit the right to           Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
      register a vessel other than a fishing vessel in the Irish       European Communities on 7 May 1996 by Jan Robert de