title: Case T-98/15: Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiators) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing thermosiphons for radiators — Earlier design — Ground for invalidity — No individual character — Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal — Right to be heard — Invitation to lodge evidence and observations following an annulment judgment of the General Court — Saturation of the state of the art)

text:
               27.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Tubes Radiatori v EUIPO — Antrax It (Radiators)
   (Case T-98/15) (1)

   ((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing thermosiphons for radiators - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Enforcement by EUIPO of a judgment setting aside a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Right to be heard - Invitation to lodge evidence and observations following an annulment judgment of the General Court - Saturation of the state of the art))
   (2017/C 095/14)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Tubes Radiatori Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro, M. Balestriero and P. Menapace, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by P. Bullock and S. Di Natale, and subsequently by S. Di Natale and L. Rampini, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1643/2014-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Antrax It and Tubes Radiatori.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 9 December 2014 (Case R 1643/2014-3);

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tubes Radiatori Srl;

               4.

               Orders Antrax It Srl to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: Case T-274/99: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Self Service Station Borne v Commission

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/28

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2006 — Self Service Station Borne v Commission
   (Case T-274/99) (1)

   (2006/C 310/52)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Second Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.


title: Case C-251/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 6 June 2006 — Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 6 June 2006 — Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr
   (Case C-251/06)
   (2006/C 212/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Firma Ing. Auer — Die Bausoftware GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr
   Questions referred

               1.

               If the effective centre of management of a company, firm, association or legal person is transferred from a Member State which has abolished capital duty before its formation to another Member State which charges capital duty at that time, is that company, firm, association or legal person precluded from being classified as a capital company ‘for the purposes of charging capital duty’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(g) of Directive 69/335/EEC (1) of 17 July 1969 as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC (2) of 10 June 1985 and Article 4(3)(b) of Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 by the fact that the first mentioned Member State has waived the charging of capital duty by repealing the relevant national legal basis for that duty?

               2.

               Does Article 7(2) of Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 prohibit the Member State to which a capital company transfers the effective centre of management, on the occasion of the transfer of the effective centre of management, from charging capital duty on the transactions described in Article 4(1)(a) and (g) of Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 as amended by Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 if the transactions took place at the time when the capital company had its effective centre of management in a Member State which, prior to the formation of the capital company, had waived the charging of capital duty by repealing the relevant national legal basis for that duty?

      (1)  English special edition: Series I Chapter 1969 (II), p. 412.

      (2)  OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23.


title: Case T-335/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Mergel and Others v OHIM (Patentconsult) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark Patentconsult — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Mergel and Others v OHIM (Patentconsult)
   (Case T-335/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark Patentconsult - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 32/60)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Volker Mergel (Wiesbaden, Germany); Klaus Kampfenkel (Hofheim, Germany); Burkart Bill (Darmstadt, Germany); and Andreas Herden (Wiesbaden) (represented by: G. Friderichs, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner and G. Schneider, Agents)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 June 2007 (Case R 299/2007-4) concerning the registration of the word sign Patentconsult as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Volker Mergel, Mr Klaus Kampfenkel, Mr Burkart Bill and Mr Andreas Herden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-94/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 27 February 2014 — Flight Refund Ltd v Deutsche Lufthansa AG

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 27 February 2014 — Flight Refund Ltd v Deutsche Lufthansa AG
   (Case C-94/14)
   2014/C 142/30
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Flight Refund Ltd

      Defendant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it possible to pursue a claim for compensation based on Article 19 of the Montreal Convention in the context of the European order for payment procedure?

               2.

               In relation to a compensation claim based on Article 19 of the Montreal Convention, are the competence of a notary — treated as a national court — who is authorised to issue a European order for payment, and the competence of a court after proceedings have become contentious once the defendant has lodged a statement of opposition, determined by the jurisdictional rules contained in Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (‘Regulation No 1896/2006’), Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (2) of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation No 44/2001’) and/or by the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air made in Montreal on 28 May 1999 (‘the Montreal Convention’)? How do these rules of law interrelate?

               3.

               In the event that the jurisdictional rules of the Montreal Convention prevail, can the claimant opt to pursue his claim before a court established in a State Party, even where there is no additional connecting factor, or must the court where his claim is pursued have territorial jurisdiction under the procedural rules of the Member State concerned?
               In addition, how should the optional jurisdictional rule under the Montreal Convention be interpreted, which refers to the court in the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract was made?

               4.

               Can a European payment order which has been issued in breach of the purpose of the regulation or by an authority which does not have jurisdiction ratione materiae be the subject of an ex officio review? Or must the contentious proceedings following the lodging of a statement of opposition, where there is a lack of jurisdiction, be discontinued ex officio or on request?

               5.

               To the extent that the Hungarian courts have jurisdiction to hear the contentious proceedings, do the national rules of procedure need to be interpreted, in accordance with European Union law and the Montreal Convention, as meaning that they necessarily appoint at least one court which, even where there is no additional connecting factor, is obliged to hear the substance of the contentious proceedings arising from the lodging of a statement of opposition?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case C-299/15: Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Daniele Striani, Mad Management SPRL, Franck Boucher and Others, RFC. Seresien ASBL v Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/29

         Order of the President of the Ninth Chamber of the Court of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Daniele Striani, Mad Management SPRL, Franck Boucher and Others, RFC. Seresien ASBL v Union Européenne des Sociétés de Football Association (UEFA), Union Royale Belge des Sociétés de Football — Association (URBSFA)
   (Case C-299/15) (1)

   (2015/C 354/31)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Case T-135/09: Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Action for annulment — Acts adopted during an inspection — Intermediate measures — Inadmissibility — Decision ordering an inspection — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Protection of privacy — Reasonable grounds — Review by the Courts)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 November 2012 — Nexans France and Nexans v Commission
   (Case T-135/09) (1)

   (Competition - Administrative procedure - Action for annulment - Acts adopted during an inspection - Intermediate measures - Inadmissibility - Decision ordering an inspection - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Protection of privacy - Reasonable grounds - Review by the Courts)
   2012/C 399/27
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Nexans France SAS (Paris, France) and Nexans SA (Paris) (represented by: M. Powell, solicitor, J.-P. Tran-Thiet, avocat, and G. Forwood, barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by X. Lewis and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by N. von Lingen and V. Di Bucci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for (i) annulment of Commission decision C(2009) 92/1 of 9 January 2009 ordering Nexans SA and its subsidiary Nexans France SAS to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20, paragraph 4, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1) (Case COMP/39.610); (ii) a declaration that the decision taken by the Commission during that inspection to copy in their entirety the content of certain computer files, in order to examine them in its offices, is unlawful; (iii) annulment of the decision taken by the Commission to interview an employee of Nexans France during the inspection; and (iv) an order directing the Commission to take certain action.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission decision C(2009) 92/1 of 9 January 2009 ordering Nexans SA and all companies directly or indirectly controlled by it, including Nexans France SAS, to submit to an inspection in accordance with Article 20, paragraph 4, of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC], in so far as it concerns electric cables other than high voltage underwater and underground electric cables and the material associated with those other cables;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Nexans and Nexans France to bear their own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 141, 20.6.2009.


title: Case C-65/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2014  — European Parliament v European Commission (Action for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Implementing Decision 2012/733/EU — EURES network — Implementing power of the European Commission — Scope — Article 291(2) TFEU)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — European Parliament v European Commission
   (Case C-65/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Implementing Decision 2012/733/EU - EURES network - Implementing power of the European Commission - Scope - Article 291(2) TFEU))
   (2014/C 462/07)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: A. Tamás and J. Rodrigues, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case C-340/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Articles 4(1) and 12(1) — Failure to include Paralimni Lake as a site of Community importance within the time-limit laid down — System of protection for the species Natrix natrix cypriaca (Cypriot grass snake))

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 March 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-340/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Articles 4(1) and 12(1) - Failure to include Paralimni Lake as a site of Community importance within the time-limit laid down - System of protection for the species Natrix natrix cypriaca (Cypriot grass snake))
   2012/C 133/09
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Zavvos and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: K. Lykourgos and M. Chatzigeorgiou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 4(1) and 12(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Failure to include Paralimni Lake in the national list of sites eligible for identification as sites of Community importance — Failure to establish a system of protection for the species Natrix natrix cypriaca (Cypriot grass snake)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Republic of Cyprus,

                           —

                           by not having included the site of Paralimni Lake in the national list of proposed sites of Community importance,

                           —

                           by tolerating activities which seriously compromise the ecological characteristics of Paralimni Lake and by not having taken the protective measures necessary to maintain the population of Natrix natrix cypriaca (Cypriot grass snake), the species which constitutes the ecological interest of the lake and Xyliatos Dam, and

                           —

                           by not having taken the requisite measures to establish and apply a system of strict protection for that species,

                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2006/105/EC of 20 November 2006, under Directive 92/43, as amended, and under Article 12(1) of Directive 92/43, as amended, respectively;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case C-416/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2012 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Commission (Appeal — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region — Inclusion in the list of a site proposed by the Kingdom of Spain — Site allegedly covering an area of British Gibraltar territorial waters and an area of the high seas — Action for annulment — Measure merely confirmatory)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/13

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 November 2012 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Commission
   (Case C-416/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region - Inclusion in the list of a site proposed by the Kingdom of Spain - Site allegedly covering an area of British Gibraltar territorial waters and an area of the high seas - Action for annulment - Measure merely confirmatory)
   2013/C 26/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Ossowski, Agent, D. Wyatt QC and V. Wakefield, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and K. Mifsud Bonnici, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Commission: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad and A. Rubio González, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) of 24 May 2011 in Case T-115/01 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v European Commission [2011] ECR II-0000, by which that court dismissed as inadmissible an action for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2010/45/EC of 22 December 2009 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, a third updated list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region [notified under number C(2009) 10406], to the extent that it retains on the list a site called ‘Estrecho Oriental’ (ES6120032), proposed by Spain, which includes an area of British Gibraltar territorial waters and an area of the high seas

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Case C-441/11 P: Appeal brought on 26 August 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-210/08 Verhuizingen Coppens NV v European Commission

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/11

         Appeal brought on 26 August 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-210/08 Verhuizingen Coppens NV v European Commission
   (Case C-441/11 P)
   2011/C 331/18
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, S. Noë and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Verhuizingen Coppens NV

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 June 2011 in Case T-210/08 Verhuizingen Coppens v Commission;

               —

               dismiss the application for annulment or annul only Article 1(i) of Decision C(2008) 926 final relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services) in so far as it holds Verhuizingen Coppens NV liable for the agreement on commissions;

               —

               set the level of the fine at such amount as the Court of Justice considers appropriate;

               —

               order Verhuizingen Coppens NV to pay the costs of the appeal and such proportion of the costs of the proceedings before the General Court as the Court of Justice considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission takes the view that the General Court infringed the law, in particular Articles 263 TFEU and 264 TFEU and the principle of proportionality, by annulling in its entirety the Commission’s decision holding Coppens liable for a single continuous infringement consisting, during the relevant period, of an agreement on commissions and an agreement on cover quotes, on the grounds that it had not been proved that Coppens was or must have been aware of the agreements on commissions. Moreover, in the interests of the proper administration of justice and the effective enforcement of the European Union’s competition rules the General Court could have annulled the decision at issue only in so far as Coppens was held liable for the agreement on commissions, since annulment of the whole decision means that Coppens’ participation in the agreement on cover quotes remains unpunished, unless the Commission adopts a further decision relating to that part of the original infringement. That could, however, lead to an undesirable duplication of administrative and judicial proceedings and might even contravene the principle ne bis in idem.


title: Case T-476/17: Action brought on 27 July 2017 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v Commission

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/17

         Action brought on 27 July 2017 — Arysta LifeScience Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-476/17)
   (2017/C 357/22)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arysta LifeScience Netherlands BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: C. Mereu and M. Grunchard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the contested Regulation (1);

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that: the defendant has committed a series of manifest errors of appraisal; the defendant has acted unreasonably by failing to give sufficient and due weight to factors which are specific to the unique case of diflubenzuron; the defendant has neither considered the timing of two regulatory procedures nor the available and new data; the defendant has failed to examine carefully and impartially all the individual elements and factors of this case.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of right of defence: the defendant did not guarantee that the applicant was able to present properly and effectively its own views throughout the review process.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging adoption of the contested Regulation Ultra Vires: the defendant acted ultra vires since the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) is the only authority legally responsible for classification or re-classification of substances, as set out in Regulation 1272/2008 (2), and not the defendant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging disproportion of the contested Regulation: the contested Regulation is disproportionate since the defendant had a choice of measures and the choice of adopting the contested Regulation restricting the use of diflubenzuron to non-edible crop causes disadvantages which are excessive in relation to the aims pursued.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/855 of 18 May 2017 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 as regards the conditions of approval of the active substance diflubenzuron (OJ 2017, L 128, p. 10).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (OJ 2008, L 353, p. 1).


title: Case C-244/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 May 2000 in the case of van Doren + Q. GmbH against lifestyle sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Michael Orth

text:
26.8.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 247/21
            other hand, Member States are not supposed to be             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
            able to take account of the regional-political trading       of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
            needs established by the Commission itself using the         (Divisional Court), by order of that court of 23 May 2000,
            objective standard of regional disparities in those          in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
            Member States. Such ‘corrections’ also mean that                Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress
            the level of the population in the region eligible for
            aid exceeds the target percentage level laid down by
                                                                                (Case C-243/00)
            the Commission of 42,7 % of the Community
            population. In any event, the fact that the Com-
            mission allows some Member States to have bigger                                      (2000/C 247/28)
            regions eligible for aid than is necessary having
            regard to the actual size of regional disparities in
            those Member States cannot constitute an objective           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            reason for reducing the size of the German regions           European Communities by an order of the High Court of
            eligible for aid.                                            Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
                                                                         Court) of 23 May 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 19 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
      —     Germany does not challenge the Commission’s                  Ex parte: Trades Union Congress, on the following question:
            chosen goal to devolve decisions on the size of the
            regional aid areas to the Member States. However,
            the measures taken by the Commission to achieve              ‘Whether Directive 96/34/EC (1) (as extended to the United
            that goal are both unnecessary and wholly dispro-            Kingdom by Directive 97/75/EC) (2), and the Framework
            portionate. Reducing the size of regions of Germany          Agreement of 14 December 1995 to which it gave effect,
            eligible for aid is not the least restrictive possible       required Member States to confer the right to parental leave in
            measure to attain the objective of reducing the              relation to children under the specified age born or adopted
            size of those regions eligible for aid within the            before the date on which the Directive was given effect in the
            Community as a whole. For example, the Com-                  national law of Member States or only to children born or
            mission could have omitted to adopt ‘correction              adopted on or after that date.’
            measures’, or structured them in such a way that the
            increase in the overall population of the region
            eligible for aid was less. The Commission could also,        (1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework
            to even out the ‘corrections’, have applied the same             agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the
            reductions in all Member States, that is, including              ETUC (OJ L 145, 19.06.96, p. 4).
                                                                         (2) OJ L 10, 16.01.98, p. 24.
            those for whom the ‘corrections’ work in their
            favour.
—     Infringement of essential procedural requirements. The
      Commission does not give sufficient reasons for reducing
      the size of the German regions eligible for aid as such or
      the effect of applying dissimilar treatment to Community
      trade and competition.                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-
                                                                         hof by order of that court of 11 May 2000 in the case of
                                                                         van Doren + Q. GmbH against lifestyle sports + sports-
      Nor do the ‘Guidelines on National Regional Aid’ publi-                 wear Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Michael Orth
      shed by the Commission in Official Journal C 74 of
      10 March 1998 contain any reasons for the Com-
      mission’s subsequent decision. Even if they did, Germany                                    (Case C-244/00)
      could not have challenged those guidelines of its own
      motion.                                                                                (2000/C 247/29)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Federal Court of Justice
(1) The Commission’s decision of 14 March 2000 redefining the
                                                                         of 11 May 2000, received at the Court Registry on 19 June
    borders of areas eligible for aid for the purpose of the Com-        2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of van Doren + Q.
    munity’s project entitled ‘Improvement of regional economic          GmbH v lifestyle sports + sportswear Handelsgesellschaft mbH
    structures’ in Germany for the period 1 January 2000 to              on the following question:
    31 December 2003 — West Germany and Berlin.
                                                                         Are Articles 28 and 30 EC to be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                         they permit the application of national legislation under which
                                                                         an infringer against whom proceedings are brought on the
                                                                         basis of a trade mark for marketing original goods, and who
                                                                         claims that the trade-mark right has been exhausted within the
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/22               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.8.2000
meaning of Article 7 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1)               (e)   must the remuneration be related to the potential
of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member                          numbers of listeners or viewers, or to actual num-
States relating to trade marks, has to adduce evidence and, in                     bers, or partly to the former and partly to the latter
appropriate cases, prove that the goods marketed by him have                       and, if so, in what proportion?
already been put on the market in the European Economic
Area for the first time by the trade-mark owner himself or
                                                                       (III) If the answer to Question I is in the negative, does that
with his consent?
                                                                             mean that the Member States are entirely free to lay down
                                                                             the yardsticks for determining equitable remuneration?
                                                                             Or is that freedom subject to certain limits and, if so,
(1) OJ L 40, p. 1.
                                                                             what are those limits?
                                                                       (1) OJ 1992, L 346, p. 61.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden, by judgment of that court of 9 June 2000,
in the case of Stichting Ter Exploitatie Van Naburige
Rechten (SENA) and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting
                              (NOS)
                                                                       Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                         (Case C-245/00)
                                                                                (Case C-249/00)
                         (2000/C 247/30)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/31)
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 9 June               An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 June              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 June
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stichting Ter            2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Exploitatie Van Naburige Rechten (SENA) and Nederlandse                represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal Service, and Enrico
Omroep Stichting (NOS), on the following questions:                    Traversa, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
(I)  Is the term ‘equitable remuneration’ used in Article 8(2)         Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     of Council directive 92/100/EEC(1) of 19 November
     1992 a Community concept which must be interpreted
     and applied in the same way in all the Member States of           The Commission claims that the Court should:
     the European Community?
                                                                       —     declare that, by reserving exclusively for Greek citizens
(II) If so,                                                                  the benefit of applying a reduced tax rate where real
                                                                             property is purchased with currency brought into Greece
     (a)    what are the yardsticks for determining the amount               from abroad, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
            of such equitable remuneration?                                  obligations under Articles 12, 39, 43 and 56 EC;
     (b) should guidance be sought from the levels of                  —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
            remuneration which were agreed or were customary
            as between the organisations concerned prior to
            entry into force of the directive in the relevant
            Member State?                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
     (c)    must or may regard be had to the expectations of           The Commission considers that Law No 1521/1950, as
            the persons concerned at the time of enactment of          amended by Law No 2459/1997, which maintains in force the
            the national legislation implementing the directive        advantage of applying a reduced tax rate so far as concerns
            in regard to the amount of remuneration?                   Greek nationals, discriminates on grounds of nationality,
                                                                       contrary to Articles 12, 39 and 43 EC (ex Articles 6, 48 and
     (d) should guidance be sought from the levels of                  52 of the Treaty). While the Commission respects the right of
            remuneration for broadcasts paid under music copy-         the Greek State to choose freely the system applied by it as
            right by broadcasters?                                     regards the tax on the transfer of real property, it also considers


title: Case T-262/16: Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — Globo Media v EUIPO — Globo Comunicação e Participações (GLOBO MEDIA) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark GLOBO MEDIA — Earlier national figurative mark TV GLOBO PORTUGAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 May 2017 — Globo Media v EUIPO — Globo Comunicação e Participações (GLOBO MEDIA)
   (Case T-262/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark GLOBO MEDIA - Earlier national figurative mark TV GLOBO PORTUGAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 202/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Globo Media, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Estropá Navarro and J. Calderón Chavero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and B. Uriarte Valiente, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Globo Comunicação e Participações S/A (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 (Case R 0561/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Globo Comunicação e Participações and Globo Media.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Globo Media, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 18.7.2016.


title: Case T-197/17: Action brought on 28 March 2017 — Abel and Others v Commission

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/46

         Action brought on 28 March 2017 — Abel and Others v Commission
   (Case T-197/17)
   (2017/C 151/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Marc Abel (Montreuil, France) and 1438 other applicants (represented by: J. Assous, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare the European Commission’s conduct to be unlawful;

               —

               acknowledge the harm sustained by the applicants as a result of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/646 of 20 April 2016 amending Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 as regards emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 6);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay EUR 1 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage sustained by the applicants as a result of the adoption of such a regulation and one symbolic euro by way of compensation for the material damage;

               —

               issue an injunction to the European Commission obliging it immediately to reduce the ‘final conformity factor’ created by Regulation (EU) 2016/646 back to 1 and to abandon the ‘temporary conformity factor’ fixed at 2.1;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant made errors during the adoption of the regulation at issue, in the context of the exercise of the power delegated to it by the European Parliament and the Council by Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on type approval of motor vehicles with respect to emissions from light passenger and commercial vehicles (Euro 5 and Euro 6) and on access to vehicle repair and maintenance information (OJ 2007 L 171, p. 1), in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission. Specifically in question are the following:

                           —

                           infringement of the rules, both primary and secondary, of EU environmental law;

                           —

                           infringement of subsidiary rules of EU law, such as the general principles of standstill, precaution, prevention, rectification at source and polluter-pays;

                           —

                           circumvention of procedural rules, in that the Commission was not entitled to use the regulatory procedure with scrutiny in order to amend an essential aspect of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007;

                           —

                           infringement of essential procedural requirements, in that the regulation at issue did not benefit from the democratic guarantees offered by recourse to the ordinary legislative procedure of joint decision-making by the European Parliament and the Council.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the existence of actual and certain damage and of a direct causal link between the conduct of the Commission and the damage alleged.


title: Case C-22/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (Air transport — Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 — Compensation for passengers in the event of denied boarding — Concept of ‘denied boarding’ — Exclusion from characterisation as ‘denied boarding’ — Cancellation of a flight caused by a strike at the airport of departure — Rescheduling of flights after the cancelled flight — Right to compensation of the passengers on those flights)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland) — Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy
   (Case C-22/11) (1)

   (Air transport - Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 - Compensation for passengers in the event of denied boarding - Concept of ‘denied boarding’ - Exclusion from characterisation as ‘denied boarding’ - Cancellation of a flight caused by a strike at the airport of departure - Rescheduling of flights after the cancelled flight - Right to compensation of the passengers on those flights)
   2012/C 366/15
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finnair Oyj

      Defendant: Timy Lassooy

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Korkein oikeus — Interpretation of Articles 2(j), 4, 5 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1) — Extraordinary circumstances — Flight cancelled because of a strike by staff at the airport of departure — Rescheduling of flights in order to attenuate the adverse effects for the passengers of the cancelled flight — Rescheduling also affecting later flights after the flight which was cancelled — Right to compensation of the passengers of those flights

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘denied boarding’, within the meaning of Articles 2(j) and 4 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as relating not only to cases where boarding is denied because of overbooking but also to those where boarding is denied on other grounds, such as operational reasons.

               2.

               Articles 2(j) and 4(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the occurrence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights after those circumstances arose cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation, under Article 4(3) of that regulation, to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-529/09: Action brought on 31 December 2009 — In ‘t Veld v Council

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/32

         Action brought on 31 December 2009 — In ‘t Veld v Council
   (Case T-529/09)
   2010/C 80/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sophie in ‘t Veld (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Blockx, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Council to refuse full access to document 11897/09;

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of this application the applicant seeks annulment of the Council decision of 8 September 2009 rejecting her request, pursuant to Regulation No 1049/2001 (1), of the full access to document 11897/09 which is an opinion from the Legal Service of the Council concerning the legal basis of the ‘Recommendation from the Commission to the Council to authorise the opening of negotiations between the European Union and the United States of America for an international agreement to make available to the United States Treasury Department financial messaging data to prevent and combat terrorism and terrorist financing’. The Council has provided the applicant with a redacted version of document 11897/09, excluding those parts which, in the applicant’s opinion, would enable her to gain knowledge of the substance of the Legal Service’s analysis.
   The applicant submits that the contested decision should be annulled because it violates the rules on access to documents contained in Regulation No 1049/2001.
   First, the applicant contends that the contested decision is wrongly based on Article 4(1)(a), third indent of Regulation 1049/2001 (protection of international relations) as the Council fails to show how full disclosure of document 11897/09 would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards the protection of the European Union’s international relations.
   Second, the applicant claims that the contested decision is also based on an erroneous interpretation of Article 4(2), second indent of Regulation 1049/2001 (protection of legal advice) as this exception does not apply to document 11897/09 since its full disclosure would not undermine the protection of court proceedings or legal advice and since there is an overriding public interest in making document 11897/09 fully accessible to the public.
   Subsidiarily, should the Court consider that these aforementioned exceptions would be applicable to document 11897/09, the applicant submits that the Council has wrongly applied Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001 insofar as it redacted from document 11897/09 more information than what was strictly necessary.
   Finally, the Applicant submits that the Council did not fulfil its obligation to state reasons for the contested decision.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 May 2000 in Case T-173/99: Gilbert Elkaïm and Philippe Mazuel v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Open competition based on qualifications and tests — Breach of the notice of competition — Equality of treatment of the applicants — Principle of sound administration — Misuse of powers and abuse of process)

text:
C 285/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.10.2000
offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck v             as a single judge; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt,                      Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 March 2000, in which
H.-J. Rabe and G. Berrisch), supported by Commission of the               it:
European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and N. Khan)
— application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC)                    1.    Dismisses the application;
No 1931/97 of 22 September 1997 imposing a definitive anti-
dumping duty on imports of unwrought, unalloyed zinc                      2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
originating in Poland and Russia and definitively collecting the
provisional duty imposed (OJ 1997 L 272, p. 1) — the
Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:                 (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts, V. Tiili, J. Azizi and P. Men-
gozzi, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 20 June 2000, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay its own costs together with those
      incurred by the defendant;
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs.
                                                                                of 5 July 2000
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.98.
                                                                          in Case T-111/99: Ignacio Samper v European Parlia-
                                                                                ment (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Publication of a new notice of vacancy following
                                                                          the annulment of a decision making an appointment — Re-
                                                                          establishment of career — Duty to have regard for the
                                                                          welfare and interests of officials — Interests of the service
                                                                          — Misuse of powers — Refusal to grant a temporary
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                             posting)
                          of 25 May 2000                                                            (2000/C 285/16)
in Case T-173/99: Gilbert Elkaïm and Philippe Mazuel v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                                           (Language of the case: French)
(Officials — Open competition based on qualifications and                 In Case T-111/99: Ignacio Samper, an official of the European
tests — Breach of the notice of competition — Equality of                 Parliament, residing in Madrid, represented by E. Boigelot, of
treatment of the applicants — Principle of sound adminis-                 the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
      tration — Misuse of powers and abuse of process)                    the Chambers of L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v
                                                                          European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. Sant’An-
                                                                          na) — application for annulment of Vacancy Notice No 8675
                          (2000/C 285/15)                                 concerning the filling of a post as Head of Division in the
                                                                          Madrid Information Office and of the procedure for filling the
                                                                          post advertised by that notice by way of transfer or promotion
                    (Language of the case: French)                        — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
                                                                          V. Tiili, President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi,
                                                                          Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
In Case T-173/99: Gilbert Elkaïm, residing in Paris, and                  has given a judgment on 5 July 2000, in which it:
Philippe Mazuel, a national expert on secondment to the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in Brus-
                                                                          1.    Dismisses the action;
sels, represented by N. Ravailhe, of the Brussels Bar, 6 Rue
Hydraulique, Brussels, v Commission of the European Com-
munities (Agents: G. Valsesia and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart)                 2.    Orders the Parliament to pay all the costs.
— application, first, for annulment of open competition
COM/A/15/98, of the lists of suitable candidates drawn up
following that competition and of any recruitments made on                (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
the basis of those lists and, second, for an order requiring the
Commission to organise a new competition — the Court of
First Instance (Single Judge), composed of: K. Lenaerts, sitting


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/30

         Removal from the register of Case C-399/04 (1)

   (2005/C 143/57)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 4 February 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-399/04 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 273 of 06.11.2004.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 September 2000 in Case C-22/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura di Pinerolo): Cristoforo Bertinetto v Biraghi SpA (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milk products — Milk-price — Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68)

text:
25.11.2000              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 335/13
1.    Declares that, by prohibiting the acquisition by persons resident                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      in Belgium of securities of a loan issued abroad, under the
      second paragraph of Article 3 of the Royal Decree of 4 October
      1994, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                                         of 26 September 2000
      obligations under Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56
      EC);                                                                  in Case C-23/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Free
                                                                            movement of goods — Procedures for detention under
                                                                            customs control — Goods in transit — Industrial property
                                                                                right — Spare parts for the repair of motor vehicles)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/25)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                         (Language of the case: French)
                      of 26 September 2000
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in Case C-22/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                         in the European Court Reports)
the Pretura di Pinerolo): Cristoforo Bertinetto v Biraghi
                               SpA (1)
                                                                            In Case C-23/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: R.B. Wainwright and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —                         Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-Surrans) —
Milk and milk products — Milk-price — Article 3 of                          application for a declaration that, by implementing, pursuant
                  Regulation (EEC) No 804/68)                               to the French Code de ]a Propriété Intellectuelle, procedures
                                                                            for the detention by the customs authorities of goods lawfully
                          (2000/C 335/24)                                   manufactured in a Member State of the European Community
                                                                            which are intended, following their transit through French
                                                                            territory, to be placed on the market in another Member State
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         where they may be lawfully marketed, the French Republic has
                                                                            failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) — the Court, composed
                   in the European Court Reports)                           of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
                                                                            and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn,
In Case C-22/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretura di                      M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
Pinerolo (Magistrate’s Court, Pinerolo), Italy for a preliminary            General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in
Cristoforo Bertinetto and Biraghi SpA — on the interpretation               which it:
of Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of
27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in                    1.    Declares that, by implementing, pursuant to the French Code
milk and milk products (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(1),                      de la Propriété Intellectuelle, procedures for the detention by the
p. 176) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                                 customs authorities of goods lawfully manufactured in a
D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P. Jann,                      Member State of the European Community which are intended,
H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;                                following their transit through French territory, to be placed on
S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                        the market in another Member State where they may be lawfully
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                         marketed, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
26 September 2000, in which it has ruled:                                         under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                                Article 28 EC);
Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June
1968 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk              2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
products precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the
main proceedings, which is designed to promote and encourage the
establishment of a uniform producer price for milk.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.


title: Case C-349/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Auditeur du travail v Yangwei SPRL (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 97/81/EC — Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work — Obligation to publicise and keep employment contracts and work schedules)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/5

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Auditeur du travail v Yangwei SPRL
   (Case C-349/11) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 97/81/EC - Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work - Obligation to publicise and keep employment contracts and work schedules)
   2012/C 109/09
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Liège

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Auditeur du travail

      Defendant: Yangwei SPRL

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Interpretation of Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998, L 14, p. 9) — Permissibility of national legislation requiring an employer to draw up documents recording departures from work schedules as well as to keep and publicise the contracts and work schedules of part-time workers — Administrative obstacles liable to limit the opportunities for part-time work

      Operative part of the order

   Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which makes employers responsible for the obligations of retention and publication of the contracts and work-schedules of part-time workers if it is established that such legislation does not lead to them being treated less favourably than full-time workers in a similar situation or, if such there is such a difference in treatment, it is established that it is justified on objective grounds and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives thus pursued. It is for the referring court to perform the necessary factual and legal investigation, particularly with regard to the applicable national law, in order to determine whether that is so in the case before it.
   In the event that the referring court were to conclude that the national legislation at issue is incompatible with Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work annexed to Directive 97/81, Clause 5(1) thereof would have to be interpreted as precluding such legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that court of 15 January 1997 in the case of 1. Dutch Antillian Dairy Industry Inc., 2. Verenigde Douane-Agenten BV; Netherlands Antilles intervening, v. Rijksdienst voor de Keuring van Vee en Vlees (Case C-106/97)

text:
No C 142/ 12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10 . 5 . 97
( a ) whether a legal provision which relieves a particular                         particular to Article 132 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty and
      public economic entity from the obligation of                                 Articles 102 and 103 of Council Decision 91 /482/
      complying with the generally applicable legislation                           EC of 25 July 1991 on the association of the
      concerning fixed-term employment contracts falls                              overseas      countries      and   territories with     the
      within the scope of 'aid granted by a Member State or                         European Economic Community ( 2 ) valid in so far
      through State resources in any form whatsoever';                              they relate to the imports referred to in
                                                                                Question 1 ( a )?
( b ) whether, if question ( a ) is answered in the affirmative,
      an aid of that kind should be subject to the                                  If Questions 1(a ) and ( b ) are answered in the
      preliminary examination procedure under Article 93 ( 3 )                      affirmative :
      of the Treaty;
                                                                         2.    Must Article 23 of the aforementioned Directive be
(c ) whether, where that procedure has not been followed,                       interpreted as meaning that the national provisions
      the prohibition of an aid of that kind can be regarded                    adopted to implement that article may only be applied
      as directly applicable within the domestic law of the                    to the imports referred to in Question 1 ( a ):
      Italian State;
                                                                               — after the rules relating to intra-Community trade
( d ) whether, in the event of question (c ) being answered in                      in the goods concerned, to which, under Article 22
      the affirmative, such a prohibition may be relied on in                       of that Directive, the third-country rules must be
      a dispute between the public economic entity and an                           at least equivalent, have fully entered into force,
      individual who complains of failure to apply to him                           and
      the general legislation concerning fixed-term
      employment in order to secure conversion of his                          — after a legally valid decision has been taken with
      employment relationship into one of indeterminate                             regard to the inclusion of the country concerned
      duration and/or compensation for damage .                                     on the first list mentioned in Article 23 ( 3 ) and
                                                                                with regard to the list of approved establishments
                                                                                in that country ?
                                                                         3 . Is Commission Decision 94/70/EC ( 3 ) valid ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that court                  (') OJ No L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992, p . 1 .
of 15 January 1997 in the case of 1 . Dutch Antillian                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 263 , 19 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                         ( 3 ) OJ No L 36 , 8 . 2 . 1994, p. 5 .
Dairy Industry Inc., 2. Verenigde Douane-Agenten BV;
Netherlands Antilles intervening, v. Rijksdienst voor de
                      Keuring van Vee en Vlees
                           ( Case C-106/97 )
                             ( 97/C 142/25 )
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Reference has been made of the Court of Justice of the                   Grande Instance, Grasse, by judgment of that court of
European Communities College van Beroep voor het Be                     19 July 1996 in the case of the Public Prosecutor, and the
drijfsleven ( administrative court of last instance in matters           federal consumers' union 'Que Choisir ?' and the general
of trade and industry) by judgment of that court of                      consumer organization 'OR.GE.CO', civil plaintiffs, v.
 15 January 1997 in the case of 1 . Dutch Antillian Dairy                                 Max Rombi and Arkopharma SA
Industry Inc., 2 . Verenigde Douane-Agenten BV; Nether                                              ( Case C-107/97 )
lands Antilles intervening, v. Rijksdienst voor de Keuring
van Vee en Vlees on the following questions:                                                           ( 97/C 142/26 )
 1 . ( a ) Must the provisions of Chapter III of Directive 92/           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            46/EEC ( 5 ), seen in particular in the light of             European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
            Article 227, together with Articles 131 to 136, of           Grande Instance ( Regional Court), Grasse, of 19 July
            the EC Treaty be interpreted as setting the result           1997, which was received at the Court Registry on
            to be achieved — within the meaning of the third             14 March 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the
            paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty — by               Public Prosecutor, and the federal consumers ' union ' Que
            national implementing provisions which are                   Choisir ?' and the general consumer organization
            applicable to imports into the EC of butter                  ' OR.GE.CO', civil plaintiffs, v. Max Rombi and
            originating in the overseas countries and territories        Arkopharma SA on the following questions:
            listed in Annex IV to the EC Treaty, including the
            Netherlands Antilles ?
                                                                         1 . Can a Member State correctly transpose a Community
            If Question 1 ( a ) is answered in the affirmative:                 directive where in the national transposing measure it
                                                                                maintains in force previous provisions adopted on the
      ( b ) Are the provisions of Chapter III of the                            basis of repealed national legislation transposing a
            aforementioned Directive, having regard in                          previous, repealed directive, indicating in the new


title: Case T-183/09: Action brought on 11 May 2009 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Club de Golf Peralada (WINE SPA)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/49

         Action brought on 11 May 2009 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Club de Golf Peralada (WINE SPA)
   (Case T-183/09)
   2009/C 153/93
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and O. Klimis, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Club de Golf Peralada, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 March 2009 in joined cases R 1231/2005-4 and R 1250/2005-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “WINE SPA”, for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 16, 24, 25 and 42

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

      Mark or sign cited: Various national, international and Community trade mark registrations of the mark “SPA” for goods and services in classes 3, 32 and 42, respectively; Benelux and international trade mark registration of the mark “LES THERMES DE SPA” for goods and services in classes 3 and 42; German trade mark registration of the mark “SPA MONOPOLE S.A. SPA” for goods in class 3; S.A. SPA Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa, en abrégé S.A. Spa Monopole N.V., société anonyme, company name protected in Belgium; Les Thermes de Spa, Place Royale 2, 4900 Spa, Belgium, trade name protected in Belgium

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 75, second sentence and 76(1), second sentence of Council Regulation 207/2009 (1) as the decision of the Board of Appeal was taken in breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing, as well as in breach of the adversarial principle; Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal based its assessment of the distinctive character of the earlier trade mark “SPA” on erroneous and non-established elements and failed to assess the similarity between the trade marks concerned in relation to the goods for which they are registered or applied for. Finally, the Board of Appeal failed to examine whether the use of the Community trade mark concerned was likely to take unfair advantage of, or to be detrimental to the distinctive character and the reputation of the earlier mark “SPA”, thereby infringing Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009.

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


title: Case T-25/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Germans Boada v OHIM (Manual tile-cutting machine) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community three-dimensional mark — Manual tile-cutting machine — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Equal treatment)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2013 — Germans Boada v OHIM (Manual tile-cutting machine)
   (Case T-25/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community three-dimensional mark - Manual tile-cutting machine - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Lack of distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Equal treatment)
   2013/C 71/24
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Germans Boada, SA (Rubí, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2010 (Case R 771/2010-1), relating to an application for registration of the three-dimensional sign representing a manual tile-cutting machine as a Community trade mark

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Germans Boada, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case C-192/07: Order of the President of the Court of 24 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-192/07) (1)

   (2008/C 79/43)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Case C-479/06: Action brought on 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/48

         Action brought on 23 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-479/06)
   (2006/C 326/98)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/26/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 amending Directive 97/68/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures against the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road mobile machinery, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2004/26/EC into domestic law expired on 20 May 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 146 of 30.04.04, p. 1.


title: Case C-58/05: Action brought on 10 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/13

         Action brought on 10 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-58/05)
   (2005/C 93/23)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Ström van Lier and N. Yerrell, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and other provisions necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 2000/79/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 concerning the European Agreement on the Organisation of Working Time of Mobile Workers in Civil Aviation concluded by the Association of European Airlines (AEA), the European Transport Workers' Federation (ETF), the European Cockpit Association (ECA), the European Regions Airline Association (ERA) and the International Air Carrier Association (IACA), or in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that Directive, and

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the Directive expired on 1 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 302 of 1 December 2000, p. 57.


title: Case C-184/08: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 — Article 18 — Market for detergents and for surfactants for detergents — Sanctions)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/11

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-184/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 - Article 18 - Market for detergents and for surfactants for detergents - Sanctions)
   2009/C 113/21
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Oliver and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt or communicate within the prescribed time-limit dissuasive, effective and proportionate sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents (OJ 2004 L 104, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, sanctions in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 April 2003 in Case C-144/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Matthias Hoffmann (VAT — Sixth Directive — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Body — Meaning — Services performed by a natural person — Cultural services by a soloist)

text:
C 146/4                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               21.6.2003
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                               (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 3 April 2003                                                               of 8 May 2003
in Case C-144/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     in Case C-269/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
        the Bundesgerichtshof): Matthias Hoffmann ( 1)                        the Bundesfinanzhof): Wolfgang Seeling v Finanzamt
                                                                                Starnberg, (1)
(VAT — Sixth Directive — Exemptions for certain activities
in the public interest — Body — Meaning — Services                            (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 6(2)(a) and 13B(b) —
performed by a natural person — Cultural services by a                        Private use by the taxable person of a dwelling in a building
                                soloist)                                      forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of the business —
                                                                              Such use not equivalent to the leasing or letting of immovable
                                                                                property)
                            (2003/C 146/05)
                                                                                (2003/C 146/06)
                     (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-144/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against                  In Case C-269/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Matthias Hoffmann, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(n)                 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary
of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977                      ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating                Wolfgang Seeling and Finanzamt Starnberg, on the interpret-
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:                         ation of Articles 6(2)(a), 13B(b) and 17(2)(a) of Sixth Council
uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court                  Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),                  of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken                 Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate                     ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,               composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
has given a judgment on 3 April 2003, in which it has ruled:                  C. W. A. Timmermans, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and S. von
                                                                              Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
                                                                              H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
1.    Article 13A(1)(n) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC             given a judgment on 8 May 2003, in which it has ruled:
      of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
      Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
      of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, is to be               Articles 6(2)(a) and 13B(b) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/
      interpreted to the effect that the expression ‘other [recognised]       EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
      cultural bodies’ does not exclude soloists performing individu-         Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
      ally.                                                                   value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as
                                                                              precluding national legislation which treats as an exempt supply of
                                                                              services, on the basis that it constitutes a leasing or letting of
2.    The heading of Article 13A of that directive does not, of itself,       immovable property within the meaning of Article 13B(b), the
      entail restrictions on the possibilities of exemption provided for      private use by a taxable person of part of a building which is treated
      by that provision.                                                      as forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of his business.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                   (1 ) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.


title: Case C-446/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, Netherlands) — A.G. Winkel v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Beef and veal — Common organisation of the markets — Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 — Article 3(f) — Grant of a suckler cow premium — Conditions consistent with usual animal husbandry practice)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, Netherlands) — A.G. Winkel v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-446/06) (1)

   (Beef and veal - Common organisation of the markets - Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 - Article 3(f) - Grant of a suckler cow premium - Conditions consistent with usual animal husbandry practice)
   (2008/C 107/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A.G. Winkel

      Defendants: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Article 3(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ L 1999 L 160, p. 21) — Compatibility of national legislation which makes the award of a suckler-cow premium subject to conditions corresponding to a usual animal husbandry practice
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 3(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1512/2001 of 23 July 2001, does not preclude national rules which make the right to a suckler cow premium subject to conditions consistent with usual animal husbandry practice that require, first, a certain frequency of calving and secondly, that the calf should have been suckled by its mother for a period of four months after its birth.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.