title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State), Greece, by a decision of that court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Canadane Cheese Trading AMBA and Adelfi G. Kouri AEVE v. Ministers of (1) Commerce, (2) Finance, (3) Health, Welfare and Social Security, and (4) Agriculture (Case C-317/95)

text:
No C 333/6             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9 . 12 . 95
and Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues ) — the Court ( Sixth                     and method of manufacture are familiar to consumers,
Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the                   even though they differ in their secondary characteristics
Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F.                      — not, however, decisively as regards type, but simply in
A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                 the determination of different national varieties and in
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on                   that case the majority of those national varieties are
26 October 1995 , the operative part of which is as                       lawfully produced and.marketed primarily for domestic
follows :                                                                 consumption in the Member State of their origin ?
                                                                          Further, whenever a product is put on the market within
                                                                          the Community for sale for consumption exclusively or
1 . The appeals are dismissed.                                            almost exclusively within one Member State where there
                                                                          is a demand on the part of consumers, especially when
                                                                          the product is known under a traditional name, then,
2 . The appellants are ordered to pay the costs.                          even where the product is also produced in another
                                                                          Member State — not, however, for marketing primarily
                                                                          for domestic consumption, but with the exclusive, or
(') OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .                                         almost exclusive, intention that it will be exported to the
                                                                          Member State where it is consumed — is the general
                                                                          familiarity of consumers with the product within the
                                                                          Community as regards its general and essential
                                                                          characteristics to be assessed and judged by reference to
                                                                          the consumers within the said Member State where that
                                                                          product is marketed for consumption ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis               3 . If the answer to the previous questions is in the
Epikratias ( Council of State ), Greece, by a decision of that            affirmative, in view of the information set out above
court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Canadane Cheese                      contained in Communication 9539/VI/24 . 2 . 1994 from
Trading AMBA and Adelfi G. Kouri AEVE v. Ministers of                     the Director-General of the Directorate-General for
( 1 ) Commerce, ( 2 ) Finance, ( 3 ) Health, Welfare and Social           Agriculture of the European Communities and the
                  Security, and ( 4 ) Agriculture                         accompanying report and consequently the data
                        ( Case C-3 17/95 )                                extracted — first, as regards the proportionate
                          ( 95/C 333/ 10 )                                relationship between total consumption within the
                                                                          Community of cheese under the name feta and
                                                                          consumption within the Community of cheese under the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    same name manufactured from sheep and goat's milk
European Communities by a decision of the Simvoulio tis                   and by the natural straining method; secondly, as
Epikratias, which was received at the Court Registry on                   regards the proportionate relationship between
10 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 consumption of feta cheese from sheep and goat's milk
Canadane Cheese Trading AMBA and Adelfi G. Kouri                          within the Community and consumption of the same
AEVE v. Ministers of ( 1 ) Commerce, ( 2 ) Finance,                       product in Greece; and thirdly, as regards the
( 3 ) Health, Welfare^and Social Security, and ( 4 ) Agriculture          proportionate relationship between production,
on the following questions :                                              domestic consumption and export in Denmark, and also
                                                                          in all the other Community countries, of cheese under
                                                                          the name ' feta' made from cow's milk by the
1 . Does it follow from an interpretation of Articles 30 and              ultra-filtration process — is it possible to accept that
      36 of the EEC Treaty that a Member State may refuse to              white cheese under the name 'feta ' may be produced
      allow the use of a certain commercial name for products             in the other Community countries, in particular in
      produced by and exported from another Community                     Denmark, with the almost exclusive aim of exporting it,
      country for circulation within that State where those               as regards intra-Community trade, to Greece which is
      products are so different from the point of view of their           almost the only Community country where cheese is
      composition and method of manufacture from products                 marketed for consumption under the name feta ?
      which are generally known by that name in the                       Furthermore, should general familiarity within the
      Community that they could not be regarded as similar                Community with cheese known under the commercial
      products falling within the same category ?                         name feta, in particular as regards its general and
                                                                          essential characteristics, be assessed and judged by
                                                                          reference to consumers of feta cheese in Greece, for
2 . In that situation, should general familiarity with the                whom ' feta' means white cheese produced from sheep
      product under a particular name within the Community                and or goat's milk by the natural straining method,
      be assessed and judged in relation to consumers within              whereas cheese manufactured from cow's milk by the
      the Member States of the Community, since it is their               ultra-filtration process is so essentially different from
      protection that is sought ? Does 'products generally                the point of view of raw material and method of
      known under a certain name by consumers within the                  manufacture that it is impossible to treat it as a similar
      Community' mean similar products, the general and                   product ? In consequence, is Article 83 of the Greek
      essential characteristics of which as regards composition           Foodstuffs Code, in the version in fbrce when the
 ---pagebreak--- 9 . 12 . 95              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          No C 333/7
      contested decision was adopted, reserving the use of the            by the Commission of the European Communities,
      name feta solely to cheese produced from sheep and/or               represented by James Macdonald Flett, member of the Legal
      goat's milk by the natural straining method compatible,             Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in
      for the purposes of the case under review, with                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
      Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty ?                              Centre Wagner.
                                                                          The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1 . declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
Action brought on 10 October 1995 by the Commission of                           administrative provisions necessary to comply with
          the European Communities against Ireland                               Council Directives 92/45/EEC ('), 92/46/EEC ( 2 ),
                           ( Case C-3 18/95 )                                    92/65/EEC ( 3 ), 92/ 116/EEC (4 ), 92/117/EEC ( 5 ) and
                             ( 95/C 333/ 11 )                                    92/118/EEC ( 6 ) Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under the Directives and under the Treaty; and
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 10 October 1995                    2 . order Ireland to pay the costs.
by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by James Macdonald Flett, member of the Legal
Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in                  Pleas in law and main arguments:
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
Centre Wagner.
                                                                          Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
The Applicant claims that the Court should :                              be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
                                                                          Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
1 . declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or             Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January
      Council Directive 92/ 119/EEC of 17 December 1992                   1994 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
      introducing general Community measures for the                      necessary to comply with the Directives referred to in the
                                                                          conclusions of the Commission .
      control of certain animal diseases and specific measures
      relating to swine vesicular disease ( ! ) Ireland has failed
      to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and under the
                                                                          (') Council Directive 92/45/EEC of 16 June 1992 on public health
      Treaty; and                                                               and animal health problems relating to the killing of wild game
                                                                                and the placing on the market of wild-game meat ( OJ No L 268 ,
2 . order Ireland to pay the costs .                                            14 . 9 . 1992 , p. 35 ).
                                                                          (2 ) Council Directive 92/46/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying down the
                                                                                health rules for the production and placing on the market of raw
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 milk, heat-treated milk and milk-based products ( OJ No L 268 ,
                                                                                14 . 9 . 1992 , p. 1 ).
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall               ( 3 ) Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                          animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the                       the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                         to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 October                         rules referred to in Annex A ( I ) to Directive 90/425/EEC ( OJ No
1993 without Ireland having enacted the provisions                              L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p. 54 ).
                                                                          (4 ) Council Directive 92/1 1 6/EEC of 1 7 December 1 992 amending
necessary to comply with the Directive referred to in the                       and updating Directive 71 / 118/EEC on health problems
conclusions of the Commission .
                                                                                affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat ( OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 ,
                                                                                p. 1 ).
( ] ) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 69 .                                ( 5 ) Council Directive        92/ 117/EEC     of   17 December     1992
                                                                                concerning measures for protection against specified zoonoses
                                                                                and specified zoonotic agents in animals and products of animal
                                                                                origin in order to prevent outbreaks to food-borne infections
                                                                                and intoxications ( OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 38 ).
                                                                          ( 6 ) Council Directive 92/118/EEC of 17 December 1992 laying
                                                                                down animal health and public health requirements governing
                                                                                trade in and imports into the Community of products not
Action brought on 10 October 1995 by the Commission of                          subject to the said requirements laid down in specific
           the European Communities against Ireland                             Community rules referred to in Annex A ( I ) to Directive
                           ( Case C-3 19/95                                     89/662/EEC and , as regards pathogens, to Directive
                                                                                90/425/EEC ( OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 49 ).
                              ( 95/C 333/ 12 )
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 10 October 1995


title: Case T-263/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 December 2005  — BIC v OHIM (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a lighter with a flint — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Distinctive character acquired by use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 2005 — BIC v OHIM
   (Case T-263/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a lighter with a flint - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 60/75)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): BIC SA (Clichy, France) (represented by: M.-P. Escande and A. Guillemin, Lawyers)

      Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2004 (Case R 469/2003-4), in relation to the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of a lighter with a flint
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.


title: Case T-526/09: Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — PAKI Logistics v OHIM (PAKI) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark PAKI — Absolute ground for refusal — Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality — Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/209)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2011 — PAKI Logistics v OHIM (PAKI)
   (Case T-526/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark PAKI - Absolute ground for refusal - Trade mark contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality - Article 7(1)(f) of Regulation (EC) No 207/209)
   2011/C 340/34
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: PAKI Logistics (Ennepetal, Germany) (represented by M. Bergermann, P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and J. Vogtmeier, lawyers)

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

      Intervener in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by S. Behzadi-Spencer and subsequently by F. Penlington, Agents, assisted by S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2009 (Case R 1805/2007-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign PAKI as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders PAKI Logistics GmbH to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-666/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 14 December 2015 — X, GoPro Coöperatief UA v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (Netherlands) lodged on 14 December 2015 — X, GoPro Coöperatief UA v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond
   (Case C-666/15)
   (2016/C 106/13)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Noord-Holland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: X, GoPro Coöperatief UA

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Douane, kantoor Rotterdam Rijnmond

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the Commission’s explanatory notes to subheading 8525 80 30 and to subheadings 8525 80 91 and 8525 80 99 of the Combined Nomenclature to be interpreted as meaning that there are also ‘at least 30 minutes in a single sequence of video’ in the case where, by means of a ‘video record’ mode, sequences of video together lasting longer than 30 minutes are recorded, but those sequences of video are recorded in separate files, each with a duration of less than 30 minutes, and the user must, when playing back, open each file with a duration of less than 30 minutes separately, although it is possible, with the aid of the software supplied by GoPro, to place the sequences, which have been incorporated into those files, on a personal computer one after another and thereby save a single video sequence of more than 30 minutes’ duration in a single file on a personal computer?

               2.

               Is classification, under CN subheading 8525 80 99, of video camera recorders which can record sequences from external sources precluded in the case where the sequences cannot be played back via an external TV receiver or an external monitor because those video camera recorders, such as the GoPro Hero 3 Silver Edition, can play back, on an external screen or monitor, only files which they have recorded via their own lenses?


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2004 in Case T-104/02: Société française de transports Gondrand Frères SA v Commission of the European Communities (Remission of import duties — Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 — Meaning of ‘special situation’ under Article 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Anti-dumping duty on imports of urea ammonium nitrate solution originating in Poland — Direct invoicing of the importer)

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 21 September 2004
   in Case T-104/02: Société française de transports Gondrand Frères SA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Remission of import duties - Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 - Meaning of ‘special situation’ under Article 905 of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 - Anti-dumping duty on imports of urea ammonium nitrate solution originating in Poland - Direct invoicing of the importer)
   (2004/C 284/30)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-104/02: Société française de transports Gondrand Frères SA, established in Paris (France), represented by M. Famchon, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Durand, B. Stromsky and X. Lewis, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Commission decision C(2002) 24 final, of 14 January 2002, finding there to be no grounds for remission of import duties in a particular case — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.


title: Case C-584/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 19 November 2013 — Directeur général des finances publiques, Mapfre Warranty SpA v Mapfre asistencia compania internacional de seguros y reaseguros, Directeur général des finances publiques

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 19 November 2013 — Directeur général des finances publiques, Mapfre Warranty SpA v Mapfre asistencia compania internacional de seguros y reaseguros, Directeur général des finances publiques
   (Case C-584/13)
   2014/C 31/05
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Directeur général des finances publiques, Mapfre Warranty SpA

      Respondents: Mapfre asistencia compania internacional de seguros y reaseguros, Directeur général des finances publiques

      Question referred

   Must Article 2 and Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 be interpreted as meaning that the service whereby an economic operator which is independent of a second-hand motor vehicle dealer provides, in return for payment of a lump sum, a warranty covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of the second-hand vehicle falls within the category of insurance transactions exempt from value added tax or, on the contrary, as meaning that such a supply falls within the category of ‘supply of services’?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-694/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl v Questore di Napoli

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 21 December 2015 — Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl v Questore di Napoli
   (Case C-694/15)
   (2016/C 106/24)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vigilanza Privata Turris Srl

      Defendant: Questore di Napoli

      Questions referred

               1.

               [Is the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C 465/2005 Commission v Italy (EU:C:2007:781), in which that court] found that the Italian State was in breach of the principles enshrined in Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty (freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services), stating that:

                           (a)

                           it is obligatory to swear an oath of allegiance to the Italian Republic in order to work as a private security guard;

                           (b)

                           private security guard activities may be pursued by service providers established in another Member State only after authorisation of limited territorial validity has been granted by the Prefetto (provincial governor) without taking account of the obligations to which such providers are already subject in their Member State of origin;

                           (c)

                           that authorisation is to be of limited territorial validity and is to be granted subject to consideration of the number and size of private security undertakings already operating in the area in question;

                           (d)

                           private security undertakings must have a place of business in each province in which they operate;

                           (e)

                           the staff of private security undertakings must be individually authorised to undertake private security work without taking account of the controls and verifications already carried out in the Member State of origin;

                           (g)

                           [sic] private security undertakings must have a minimum and/or maximum number of employees in order to obtain authorisation;

                           (h)

                           such undertakings must lodge a guarantee with the local Cassa depositi e prestiti;

                           (i)

                           the prices for private security services are to be fixed, with the approval of the Prefetto, within the limits of a predetermined margin for variation;
                           [to be interpreted as] precluding, of itself, the provincial public security authority (the Questore) from imposing requirements regarding the provisions of services such as those at issue in this case, [which] make it compulsory to deploy a minimum number of security guards (two) for operations entailing the provisions of particular services?

               2.

               Notwithstanding the fact that it is a new question, may the question referred to above may be said to be sufficiently analogous to the questions raised in Case C-462/2005 as to lead to the same outcome, on the basis of Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty?


title: Case C-208/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial Navarra (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2014  — Antonia Valdivia Reche v Banco de Valencia, S.A.

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial Navarra (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2014 — Antonia Valdivia Reche v Banco de Valencia, S.A.
   (Case C-208/14)
   2014/C 223/08
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial Navarra

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Antonia Valdivia Reche

      Respondent: Banco de Valencia, S.A.

      Question referred

   Does Article 6 of Directive 93/13 (1) require the national court, when it has found a term setting a rate of 29 % for default interest to be unfair, to declare that term ineffective, without any scope for reducing the rate of interest agreed, even though such a reduction has been expressly requested by one of the consumers against whom proceedings have been brought?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29).


title: Case T-211/11: Action brought on 11 April 2011 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission

text:
               18.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/18

         Action brought on 11 April 2011 — Timab Industries and CFPR v Commission
   (Case T-211/11)
   2011/C 179/31
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Timab Industries (Dinard, France) and Cie financière et de participations Roullier (CFPR) (Saint-Malo, France) (represented by: N. Lenoir, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 1 February 2011 refusing access to certain Commission documents relating to a procedure pursuant to Article 101 TFEU and Article 13 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, concerning a cartel on the European market in animal feed phosphates (Case COMP/38866).
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging error of law and a manifest error of assessment in relation to the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of Regulation No 1049/2001, (1) in so far as the documents applied for are not opinions but decisions in respect of which it has not been established that disclosure might seriously undermine the decision-making process.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging error of law and a manifest error of assessment in relation to the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as the documents applied for do not contain any sensitive commercial information precluding, even partly, their disclosure.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging error of law and a manifest error of assessment in relation to the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, in so far as the Commission contended that the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits would be undermined.

      (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).


               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/60

         Removal from the Register of Case T-174/03 (1)

   (2004/C 262/111)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 6 July 2004, the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-174/03, Franco Cozzani v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


title: Case C-542/12: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Fidenato Giorgio (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 2002/53/EC — Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species — Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) entered in the common catalogue — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 — Article 20 — Existing products — Directive 2001/18/EC — Article 26a — Measures to avoid the accidental presence of genetically modified organisms)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/52

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 May 2013 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Pordenone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Fidenato Giorgio
   (Case C-542/12) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2002/53/EC - Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species - Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) entered in the common catalogue - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 - Article 20 - Existing products - Directive 2001/18/EC - Article 26a - Measures to avoid the accidental presence of genetically modified organisms)
   2013/C 225/93
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Pordenone (Italy)

      Criminal proceedings against

   Fidenato Giorgio

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Pordenone — Interpretation of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1) — National legislation making the cultivation of GMOs, entered in the common catalogue of varieties, subject to an authorisation procedure to avoid the accidental presence of genetically modified organisms in other crops (principle of coexistence)

      Operative part of the order

   European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that the cultivation of genetically modified organisms such as maize varieties MON 810 cannot be made subject to a national authorisation procedure, where the use and marketing of those varieties are authorised under Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on genetically modified food and feed, and where those varieties have been entered in the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species provided for in Council Directive 2002/53/EC of 13 June 2002 on the common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species, as amended by Regulation No 1829/2003. Article 26a of Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, as amended by Directive 2008/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from opposing the cultivation on its territory of such genetically modified organisms on the ground that obtaining a national authorisation would constitute a coexistence measure to avoid the accidental present of genetically modified organisms in other crops.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case C-449/07: Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 3 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-449/07) (1)

   (2008/C 142/39)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case C-125/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 10 March 2017 — Luigi Bisignani v Agenzia delle Entrate -Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 10 March 2017 — Luigi Bisignani v Agenzia delle Entrate -Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma
   (Case C-125/17)
   (2017/C 213/21)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Luigi Bisignani

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate -Direzione Provinciale 1 di Roma

      Question referred

   In so far as they permit the retention in national law of restrictions, in force at 31 December 1993, of movements of capital from or to third countries, in order to prevent potential losses of revenue for the Member States and permit the gathering of evidence of the irregularity or illegality of transactions that appear to be incompatible with, or in breach of, tax legislation and, on the basis of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality under Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, distinguishing between taxpayers who do not find themselves in the same situation as regards their place of residence or as regards the place where their capital is invested, do Article 64 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in conjunction with the preceding Article 63 and subsequent Article 65 thereof, as well as Council Directive 2011/16/EU, (1) preclude national provisions that, in accordance with Article 9(1)(c) and (d) of Law No 97 of 6 August 2013 (European Law 2013), at least as interpreted by both parties, definitively abolished (rather than reframed) the tax offence established and penalised under Articles 4 and 5 of Decree-Law No 167 of 28 June 1990, converted, with amendments into Law No 227 of 4 August 1990, without, moreover, distinguishing the various cases of capital movement between Member States of the Union from those between the latter and States or territories with preferential tax regimes?

      (1)  Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 8 September 1997 by C against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-248/97)

text:
C 318/34                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 10 . 97
the European Communities on 14 August 1997 by                        Action brought on 8 September 1997 by C against the
Comunidad Autonoma de Cantabria, Spain, represented                           Commission of the European Communities
by Juan Ignacio Saez Bereciartu of the Cantabria Bar.                                           Case T-248/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/65 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the reference to Astander from the 11th recital
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
      in the preamble to Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1013/          Instance of the European Communities on 8 September
      97 and remove the condition that aid provided for in           1997 by C, represented by Valeriano Hernandez Martin,
      Articles 1 and 2 is subject to the restriction of ship         of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service at 2 Calle
      conversions in the aforementioned shipyard.                    Conde de la Cimera, Madrid.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     — declare wholly null and void or non-existent the
                                                                          decision of the appointing authority of the European
The applicant complains that Council Regulation ( EC ) No                 Commission of 30 March 1992 , whereby C's
 1013/97 ('), of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain shipyards                  resignation was accepted and deemed to be definitive,
under restructuring states in the 11th recital that ship
conversions will not be carried out in the shipyard at               — acknowledge the applicant's current status as a
Astander. Although that statement is not expressly                        Commission official and either: ( a ) order payment of
reflected in the body of the Regulation, it is none the less              salary due to him but unpaid since 1 April 1992 ; or,
the case that it sets a condition for the award of the                    in the alternative ( b ) find that the invalidity pension
exceptional aid which is provided for in Articles 1 and 2                 to be granted to C following completion of the
thereof. Thus, Article 1 (4 ) refers to the possibility that aid          appropriate procedure should take effect from 1 April
 for the restructuring of the publicly-owned yards in Spain               1992 ,
 may be considered compatible with the common market
 up to an amount and in the forms specified in the                   — order the Commission of the European Communities
 Regulation itself, such aid being nevertheless subject, by               to pay the costs .
way of the recital under challenge , to there being no ship
 conversions carried out in the shipyard at Astander as
 long as it remains in public ownership.                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments are those previously
                                                                     relied on in Case T-27/97 C v. Commission (').
 The applicant claims that the reference to Astander in the
 contested Regulation breaches the reservation expressly set
 forth in Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome in that a                (■) OJ C 181 , 14 . 6 . 1997, p . 15 .
 genuine decision is inserted in the preamble to a
 regulation when it should have been embodied in a
 separate piece of legislation rather than included in vague
 terms in a provision of general application . Although it
 uses a regulation, the Council makes its effectiveness
 subject to the observance of a decision, which is also              Action brought on 8 September 1997 by C against the
 mandatory but which affects the specific persons to whom                      Commission of the European Communities
 it is addressed .                                                                             ( Case T-249/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/66 )
 Moreover, the applicant alleges breach of the obligation to                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
 provide a statement of reasons for measures inasmuch as,
 in its view, it is impossible to understand why a general
 aid scheme is made subject to a restriction concerning a            An action against the Commission of the European
 specific and determined shipbuilding yard . None of this             Communities was brought before the Court of First
 has any basis at all in any accord or agreement which                Instance of the European Communities on 8 September
 might have given rise to a decision of such impact on the            1997 by C, represented by Valeriano Hernandez Martin,
 shipyard concerned and the surrounding districts .                   of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Madrid
                                                                      at 2 Calle Conde de la Cimera .
 O OJ L 148 , 6 . 6 . 1997, p . 1 .                                   The applicant claims that the Court should uphold this
                                                                      application seeking the grant of an invalidity pension to
                                                                      him in the terms set out below and order the Commission
                                                                      to pay the costs.


title: Case T-277/11: Action brought on 30 May 2011 — Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v OHIM — Promotora Imperial (iHotel)

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/19

         Action brought on 30 May 2011 — Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge v OHIM — Promotora Imperial (iHotel)
   (Case T-277/11)
   2011/C 238/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Koch, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Promotora Imperial, SA

      Form of order sought

               —

               Vary the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 24 February 2011 in Case R 832/2010-1 so as to uphold the main appeal and annul opposition No B 1458571; order the opponent to pay the costs of the opposition and appeal proceedings; uphold the decision as to the remainder;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of this action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Hotel Reservation Service Robert Ragge GmbH.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘iHotel’ for services in Classes 35, 39, 41, 42 and 43 — application No 6912877.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Promotora Imperial, SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘i-hotel’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 41 and 43.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue. The applicant claims that the Board of Appeal was incorrect in holding there to be similarity both between the goods and services concerned and between the trade marks at issue.


title: Case C-92/14: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung — Romania) — Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran v SC Suport Colect SRL Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 93/13/EEC and 2008/48/EC — Temporal and material scope — Facts preceding the accession of Romania to the European Union — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — Failure to implement Union law — Manifest lack of jurisdiction — Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU — Manifest inadmissibility

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/33

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Câmpulung — Romania) — Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran v SC Suport Colect SRL
   (Case C-92/14) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 93/13/EEC and 2008/48/EC - Temporal and material scope - Facts preceding the accession of Romania to the European Union - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - Failure to implement Union law - Manifest lack of jurisdiction - Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2014/C 315/53
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Câmpulung

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Liliana Tudoran, Florin Iulian Tudoran, Ilie Tudoran

      Defendant: SC Suport Colect SRL

      Operative part of the order

   Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts and Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC are not applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.
   In addition, firstly, the Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the third question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Judecătoria Câmpulung (Romania) by decision of 25 February 2014; secondly, the fifth question referred for a preliminary ruling by that court is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 31, 8.2.2003

text:
C 44/46         EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                         22.2.2003
                                                          III
                                                       (Notices)
                                                   (2003/C 44/84)
               Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union
        OJ C 31, 8.2.2003
        Past publications
        OJ C 19, 25.1.2003
        OJ C 7, 11.1.2003
        OJ C 323, 21.12.2002
        OJ C 305, 7.12.2002
        OJ C 289, 23.11.2002
        OJ C 274, 9.11.2002
                                             These texts are available on:
                                        EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                         CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-120/06P: Appeal brought on  27 February 2006  by Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Mentecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies) against the judgment delivered on  14 December 2005  in Case T-69/00 Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Mentecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the Euorpean Communities

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/6

         Appeal brought on 27 February 2006 by Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Mentecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies) against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2005 in Case T-69/00 Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Mentecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the Euorpean Communities
   (Case C-120/06P)
   (2006/C 108/10)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellants: Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Mentecchio SpA (FIAMM), Fabbrica Italiana Accumulatori Motocarri Montecchio Technologies Inc (FIAMM Technologies) (represented by: I. Van Bael, F. Di Gianni and A Cevese, Avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               On the basis that the state of the proceedings so permits, give a substantive ruling confirming the appellants' entitlement to compensation arising out of the defendants' liability for an unlawful act or for a lawful act;

               —

               in any event, order the defendants to pay the costs both of these proceedings and those before the Court of First Instance;

               —

               in the alternative, grant the appellants fair compensation as a result of the unreasonable length of the procedure before the Court of First Instance;

               —

               grant such further and other relief as fairness might require.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellants submit that the judgment under appeal is defective in that it fails totally to state grounds concerning one of the principal arguments raised, namely, that in the specific factual circumstances of the case, the appellants are entitled to rely on the decision adopted by the Appeal Board of the World Trade Organisation to establish unlawful conduct on the part of the Community for the purpose of their claim for compensation.


title: Case C-2/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on  2 January 2008 — Amministrazione dell'Economia e delle Finanze Agenzia delle Entrate v Olimpiclub Srl

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 2 January 2008 — Amministrazione dell'Economia e delle Finanze Agenzia delle Entrate v Olimpiclub Srl
   (Case C-2/08)
   (2008/C 79/26)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Amministrazione dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

      Respondent: Fallimento Olimpiclub Srl
   Question referred
   ‘Does Community law preclude the application of a provision of national law, such as Article 2909 of the [Italian] Civil Code, laying down the principle of res judicata, where the application of that provision would lead to a result incompatible with Community law, thereby thwarting its application, even in areas other than State aid (in relation to which, see Case C-119/05 Lucchini SpA [2007] ECR I-0000) and, in particular, in matters relating to VAT and with respect to the misuse of rights in order to obtain undue tax savings, in particular in the light also of the rules of national law — as interpreted in the case-law of this Court — according to which, in tax disputes, where a giudicato esterno [a final judgment drawn up by another court in a case on the same subject] contains a finding on a fundamental issue common to other cases, it has binding authority as regards that issue, even if it was drawn up in relation to a different tax period?’


title: Assignment of Mr O'Higgins to Chambers

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/2

         Assignment of Mr O'Higgins to Chambers
   (2008/C 260/02)
   On 17 September 2008, the Plenary Meeting of the Court of First Instance decided, following Mr O'Higgins's taking up of his duties as a Judge, to amend as follows the decisions of the Plenary Meetings of 25 September 2007 and 8 July 2008 on the assignment of the Judges to Chambers.
   For the period from 17 September 2008 to 30 September 2008, and then for the period from 1 October 2008 to 31 August 2010, the following assignments are made:
   Third Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr O'Higgins, Judges.
   Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition), sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka, Mr Frimodt Nielsen and Mr O'Higgins, Judges.
   Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber;
   Ms Labucka, Judge;
   Mr O'Higgins, Judge.


title: Case C-50/15 P: Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Kurt Hesse against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-173/11 Kurt Hesse and Lutter & Partner GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/33

         Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Kurt Hesse against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 27 November 2014 in Case T-173/11 Kurt Hesse and Lutter & Partner GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-50/15 P)
   (2015/C 138/45)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Kurt Hesse (represented by: M. Krogmann, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Lutter & Partner GmbH, Dr. Ing. h. c. F. Porsche AG

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 27 November 2014 (Case T-173/11);

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 11 January 2011 (Case R 0306/2010-4) and reject the opposition against Community trade mark application No 5723 432 of 16 February 2007.
               in the alternative

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for judgment.

         The appellant also claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his appeal, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               Defective non-consideration of factors for the similarity of the goods pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (CTMR) (1)

               The appellant contests the finding of the General Court that the Board of Appeal rightly considered that ‘mobile navigation apparatus, in particular satellite-based mobile navigation apparatus’ and the goods covered by the marks cited in opposition are similar. In assessing the similarity, the General Court failed to take account of key factors such as the category of the goods concerned, their manufacturing, marketing, distribution channels and retail premises. If all relevant factors had been fully taken into account and given proper weighting, the conclusion would have been that there was no similarity of the goods.

               2.

               Distortion of the facts and defective application of the protection based on reputation pursuant to Article 8(5) of the CTMR
               The General Court made an error of law by failing to object to the Board of Appeal’s finding that the ‘Carrera’ mark is known by a significant part of the public. The Board of Appeal based its finding in particular on individual aspects of an expert opinion. The Board of Appeal and the General Court wrongly described key findings of the expert opinion as ‘worthless’ and completely ignored other key findings. In this way, a considerable distortion of the facts and evidence forms the basis of the decision of the General Court.

               3.

               Defective acceptance of an ‘image transfer’ pursuant to Article 8(5) of the CTMR
               The General Court was wrong not to object to the Board of Appeal’s finding that a risk of ‘image transfer’ exists in favour of the appellant’s ‘Carrera’ mark applied for. The Board of Appeal took the view that all of the goods covered by the mark applied for could ‘be fitted to motor vehicles and used in them’. A ‘social usage’ results from this, on the basis of which the use of the declared goods and motor vehicles ‘coincide’. As a matter of fact, the mere fact that the declared goods can be fitted to motor vehicles and used in them does not at all constitute a ‘social usage’ and also cannot result in an image transfer. In this respect, the Board of Appeal and the General Court failed to state full reasons for their decision.

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


title: Case C-220/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Spain) — Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia v Administración General del Estado (Public procurement — Liberalisation of postal services — Directives 92/50/EEC and 97/67/EC — Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC — National legislation allowing public authorities to conclude agreements for the provision of both reserved and non-reserved postal services with a publicly owned company, namely the provider of universal postal service in the Member State concerned, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/15

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Spain) — Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-220/06) (1)

   (Public procurement - Liberalisation of postal services - Directives 92/50/EEC and 97/67/EC - Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC - National legislation allowing public authorities to conclude agreements for the provision of both reserved and non-reserved postal services with a publicly owned company, namely the provider of universal postal service in the Member State concerned, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts)
   (2008/C 51/25)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Nacional, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo — Interpretation of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14), as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC (OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21) — Agreement concluded without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts between a department of the State administration and a publicly owned company covering, in particular, the provision of postal services, including those not reserved to the universal service providers
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Community law must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts, the provision of postal services reserved, in a manner consistent with Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, to a public limited company whose capital is wholly state-owned and which, in that State, is the provider of the universal postal service.

               2)

               Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by Commission Directive 2001/78/EC of 13 September 2001, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts, the provision of non-reserved postal services within the meaning of Directive 97/67 to a public limited company whose capital is wholly state-owned and which, in that State, is the provider of the universal postal service, in so far as the contracts to which that legislation applies

                           —

                           reach the relevant threshold as provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 92/50, as amended by Directive 2001/78, and

                           —

                           constitute contracts within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 92/50, as amended by Directive 2001/78, concluded in writing for pecuniary interest,

                     which are matters for the national court to establish.

               3)

               Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 86 EC, as well as the principles of equal treatment, non-discrimination by reason of nationality and transparency, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State that allows public authorities to entrust, without regard to the rules governing the award of public service contracts, the provision of non-reserved postal services within the meaning of Directive 97/67 to a public limited company whose capital is wholly state-owned and which, in that State, is the provider of universal postal services, in so far as the contracts to which that legislation applies

                           —

                           do not reach the relevant threshold as provided for in Article 7(1) of Directive 92/50, as amended by Directive 2001/78, and

                           —

                           do not in actual fact constitute a unilateral administrative measure creating obligations solely for the provider of the universal postal service and departing significantly from the normal conditions of a commercial offer made by that company,

                     which are matters for the national court to establish.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.


title: Joined Cases C-231/11 P to C-233/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 April 2014  — European Commission v Siemens AG Österreich, VA Tech Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens Transmission & Distribution Ltd, Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA, Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA (Appeals — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in gas insulated switchgear projects — Joint and several liability for payment of the fine — Concept of an ‘undertaking’  — Principle of personal liability and the principle that the penalty must be specific to the offender and the offence — Unlimited jurisdiction of the General Court — The ultra petita rule — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — European Commission v Siemens AG Österreich, VA Tech Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens Transmission & Distribution Ltd, Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA, Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA
   (Joined Cases C-231/11 P to C-233/11 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in gas insulated switchgear projects - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine - Concept of an ‘undertaking’ - Principle of personal liability and the principle that the penalty must be specific to the offender and the offence - Unlimited jurisdiction of the General Court - The ultra petita rule - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment))
   2014/C 175/02
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis, R. Sauer and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents) (C-231/11 P), Siemens Transmission & Distribution Ltd (C-232/11 P), Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA, Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA (C-233/11 P) (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Siemens AG Österreich, VA Tech Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens Transmission & Distribution Ltd, Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA, Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA (represented by: H. Wollmann and F. Urlesberger, Rechtsanwälte), European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis, R. Sauer and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeals brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T 122/07 to T 124/07 Siemens Österreich and Others v Commission, being an application, primarily, for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear) and, in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on the appellants

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens Österreich and Others v Commission, in so far as it annuls Article 2(j) and (k) of Commission Decision C(2006) 6762 final of 24 January 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article [81 EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas insulated switchgear);

               2)

               Sets aside the first indent of paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens Österreich and Others v Commission;

               3)

               Sets aside the second to fourth indents of paragraph 3 of the operative part of the judgment in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens Österreich and Others v Commission, in so far as they fix by implication the share of the fines for the payment of which the applicants at first instance were held jointly and severally liable;

               4)

               Dismisses the appeals as to the remainder;

               5)

               Orders Siemens AG Österreich, VA Tech Transmission & Distribution GmbH & Co. KEG, Siemens Transmission & Distribution Ltd, Siemens Transmission & Distribution SA and Nuova Magrini Galileo SpA to pay the costs relating to the appeal in Case C-231/11 P;

               6)

               Orders Siemens Transmission & Distribution Ltd to pay the costs relating to the appeal in Case C-232/11 P;

               7)

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the appeal in Case C-233/11 P;

               8)

               The costs relating to the proceedings at first instance remain allocated in accordance with paragraphs 5 to 7 of the operative part of the judgment of 3 March 2011 in Joined Cases T-122/07 to T-124/07 Siemens Österreich and Others v Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.


title: Case F-38/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Zajdel-Syryczyńska v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/46

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 April 2016 — Zajdel-Syryczyńska v Commission
   (Case F-38/13) (1)

   (2016/C 222/62)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20/7/2013, p. 59.


title: Case C-324/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Poland) lodged on 7 July 2014  — PARTNER Apelski Dariusz v Zarząd Oczyszczania Miasta

text:
               29.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 339/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (Poland) lodged on 7 July 2014 — PARTNER Apelski Dariusz v Zarząd Oczyszczania Miasta
   (Case C-324/14)
   2014/C 339/03
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: PARTNER Apelski Dariusz

      Respondent: Zarząd Oczyszczania Miasta

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1) (‘Directive 2004/18/EC’), in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, be interpreted, where it states that ‘where appropriate’ an economic operator may rely on the capacities of other entities, as covering any situation where a particular economic operator does not have the skills required by the contracting authority and wishes to rely on the capacities of other entities? Or must the indication that an economic operator may rely on the resources of other entities only ‘where appropriate’ be regarded as a restriction indicating that such reliance may be had only exceptionally and not as a rule when providing evidence of the skills of economic operators in procedures for the award of public contracts?

               2.

               Can Article 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC, in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that reliance by an economic operator on the capacities of other entities in terms of their knowledge and experience ‘regardless of the legal nature of the links which it has with them’ and ‘having at its disposal the resources’ of those entities denote that during performance of the contract an economic operator need not have links with those entities or can have very loose and vague links, that is to say, it can perform the contract independently (without the involvement of another entity) or such participation can consist of ‘advice’, ‘consultation’, ‘training’ and the like? Or must Article 48(3) be interpreted as meaning that the entity on whose capacities the economic operator relies must actually and personally perform the contract in so far as its capacities were declared?

               3.

               Can Article 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC, in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator which has its own experience but to a lesser degree than it would like to indicate to the contracting authority (for example, insufficient experience to submit a tender for the whole contract) may rely additionally on the capacities of other entities to improve its situation in the procedure?

               4.

               Can Article 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC, in conjunction with Article 2 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that in the contract notice or the tendering specifications the contracting authority can (or even must) lay down the rules under which the economic operator may rely on the capacities of other entities, for example in what way the economic operators must participate in the performance of the contract, in what way the capacity of the economic operator and another entity can be combined, and whether the other entity will bear joint and several liability with the economic operator for the due performance of the contract in so far as the economic operator has relied on its capacities?

               5.

               Does the principle of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of economic operators set out in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC allow reliance on the capacities of another entity under Article 48(3) where the capacities of two or more entities which do not have the capacities in terms of knowledge and experience required by the contracting authority are combined?

               6.

               Therefore, does the principle of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of economic operators set out in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC allow an interpretation of Articles 44 and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC to the effect that the conditions for participation in the procedure that are laid down by the contracting authority may be fulfilled just formally for the purposes of participating in the procedure and regardless of the actual skills of the economic operator?

               7.

               Where it is permitted to submit a tender for lots, does the principle of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of economic operators set out in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC allow an economic operator, after the submission of tenders, to state — for example in the context of the supplementing or explaining of documents — to which lot the resources specified by it in order to prove that the conditions for participation in the procedure have been fulfilled are to be assigned?

               8.

               Do the principle of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of economic operators and the principle of transparency set out in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC allow an auction which has been carried out to be annulled and an electronic auction to be repeated where it was carried out improperly in an essential respect, for example where not all economic operators which submitted admissible tenders were invited to participate?

               9.

               Do the principle of equal and non-discriminatory treatment of economic operators and the principle of transparency set out in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC allow a contract to be awarded to an economic operator whose tender was selected as result of such an auction without it being repeated, where it is not possible to determine whether or not the participation of the economic operator which was not taken into consideration would have altered the result of the auction?

               10.

               In interpreting the provisions of Directive 2004/18/EC, is it permitted to use as a guide to interpretation the content of the provisions of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, and of the preamble thereto, even though the period for implementing it has not expired, in so far as it explains certain assumptions and intentions of the EU legislature and is not contrary to Directive 2004/18/EC?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Action brought on 10 March 1995 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-69/95)

text:
3 . 6 . 95              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 137/9
Action brought on 28 June 1993 by Hanseatische                            The pleas in law and main arguments were the subject of an
Industrie-Beteiligungen GmbH against the Commission of                    information notice in Official Journal No C 222 of
                 the European Communities                                 18 August 1993 , p. 10.
                           ( Case C-62/95 )
                             ( 95/C 137/15 )                              (!) OJ No L 144 , 16 . 6 . 1993 , p . 21 .
                                                                          ( 2 ) OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 , p . 8 .
The action brought by Hanseatische Industrie-Beteiligungen
GmbH against the Commission of the European
Communities ( Case C-335/93 ), which was referred to the
Court of First Instance by order of the Court of Justice of
27 September 1993 pursuant to Article 4 of Council
Decision 93/350/Euratom, ECSC, EEC of 8 June 1993                         Action brought on 10 March 1995 by the Italian Republic
amending Council Decision 88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom                           against the Commission of the European Communities
establishing a Court of First Instance of the European                                               ( Case C-69/95 )
Communities ( l ), became pending before the Court of                                                  ( 95/C 137/17 )
Justice on 8 March 1995 , following an order of the Court of
First Instance declining jurisdiction over the action, which
had been registered at the Court of First Instance as Case                An action against the Commission of the European
T-488/93 , and remitting it to the Court of Justice, so that               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
that Court can rule on the present action together with Case               European Communities on 10 March 1995 by the Italian
 C-329/93 ( 2 ).                                                           Republic, represented by Umberto Leanza , acting as Agent,
                                                                           assisted by Oscar Fiumara, Avvocato dello Stato, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5
                                                                           Rue Marie-Adelaide .
The pleas in law and main arguments were the subject of an
 information notice in Official Journal No C 222 of
 18 August 1993 , p. 9 .                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                           — annul Commission Decision 94/ 871 /EC of 21 December
 (') OJ No L 144 , 16 . 6 . 1993 , p . 21 .                                      1994 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
 ( 2 ) OJ No C 222 , 18 . 8 . 1993 , p . 8 .                                    Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1991 of
                                                                                the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
                                                                                Fund ( EAGGF ) Guarantee Section, in so far as it holds
                                                                                the sum of Lit 103 161 493 560 presented for clearance
                                                                                by the Italian Republic not chargeable to the
                                                                                EAGGF,
                                                                           — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Action brought on 1 July 1993 by Bremer Vulkan Verbund
 AG against the Commission of the European                                  Infringement and misapplication of Articles 1 , 3 and 5 of
                                Communities                                 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 729/70 ( x ), of Article 8 of
                             ( Case C-63/95 )                               Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1723/72 (2 ), and of the
                               ( 95/C 137/16 )
                                                                            rules governing the milk sector ( Article 4 of Council
                                                                            Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 ( 3 ) as amended ; Commission
                                                                            Regulation ( EEC ) No 1546/88 (4 )). Misuse of powers .
                                                                            Failure to state reasons : Italy has fully complied with
 The action brought by Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG against                     Community rules on the repurchase of quotas by
  the Commission of the European Communities ( Case                         suspending their reallocation, in full accordance with
  C-3 39/93 ), which was referred to the Court of First Instance            Community objectives, as a result of the extraordinary
  by order of the Court of Justice of 27 September 1993                     situation which the country is still facing. During 1991 , and
  pursuant to Article 4 of Council Decision 93/350/Euratom,                 thus coinciding with the time for the reallocation of
  ECSC, EEC of 8 June 1993 amending Council Decision                        repurchased quotas fixed by Community rules at 1 June
  88/591/ECSC, EEC, Euratom establishing a Court of First                   1991 , a major discrepancy began to appear between actual
  Instance of the European Communities (*), became pending                  milk production and the national guaranteed quantity.
  before the Court of Justice on 8 March 1995 , following an                Then in February 1992, when the scale of the problem had
  order of the Court of First Instance declining jurisdiction               become clearer, Italy informed the Commission of the
  over the action, which had been registered at the Court of                situation, thereby initiating negotiations for an increase in
  First Instance as Case T-490/93 , and remitting it to the                 its overall reference quantity (which has recently been
  Court of Justice, so that that Court can rule on the present              granted with limited retroactive effect). In December 1992,
  action together with Case C-329/93 ( 2 ).                                 when the Council of EEC Agriculture Ministers reached a
 ---pagebreak--- No C 137/ 10              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3 . 6 . 95
first compromise on Italy's request for a quota increase, it               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
was decided to finance a programme of abandoning
production to allow Italy to reduce its national production.               The appellant claims that substantive law was infringed
It appears strange, and symptomatic of a manifest misuse of                when Article 85 was applied ( maintenance and partitioning
powers, that the Commission should now censure Italy for                   of the various national markets by Parker Pen Ltd's policy of
not reallocating the quotas purchased for the purposes of                  referring enquiries to local subsidiaries; unequal treatment
Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 , while at the same time the                  of VIHO with regard to prices and conditions of sale ).
Council decided upon Community financing to reduce
Italian production. In the circumstances, the reallocation of
the 164 100 tonnes repurchased for the purposes of                         (») OJ No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 15 .
Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 would clearly have led to a
worsening of the situation . Italy therefore preferred to
suspend the reallocation, which was in contradiction with
actual Community requirements .
(')  OJ No L  94 , 28 . 4 . 1970 , p. 13 .
(2 ) OJ No L  186 , 16 . 8 . 1972 , p. 1 .                                 Action brought on 20 March 1995 by the Commission of
(;)  OJ No L  90 , 1 . 4 . 1984 , p. 13 .                                  the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
(4 ) OJ No L  139 , 4 . 6 . 1988 , p. 12 .
                                                                                ( Case C-82/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/19 )
                                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           20 March 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
                                                                           Adviser of the Commission, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, of the
Appeal brought on 14 March 1995 by VIHO Europe BV                          Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
against the judgment delivered on 12 January 1995 by the
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-102/92 between VIHO Europe BV                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
and Commission of the European Communities, supported
                          by Parker Pen Ltd                                1 . declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                           ( Case C-73/95 P)                                    obligations under the EEC Treaty because it omitted to
                              ( 95 /C 137/ 18 )                                 bring into force and to communicate to the Commission
                                                                               within the requisite time limit the laws , regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 91 /308/EEC of 10 June 1991 on
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 January                         prevention of the use of the financial system for the
1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                     purpose of money laundering ( ! );
the European Communities in Case T-102/92 between
VIHO Europe BV and the Commission of the European
Communities, supported by Parker Pen Ltd , was brought                     2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
14 March 1995 by VIHO Europe BV, Maastricht                                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(Netherlands ), represented by Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch und
Partner, Rechtsanwalte, Stuttgart, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1                  Article 16 of Directive 91 /308/EEC provides that the
rue Goethe, L-1637 Luxembourg.                                             Member States are to bring into force the laws , regulations
                                                                           and administrative decisions necessary to comply with the
                                                                           Directive before 1 January 1993 and that they are forthwith
                                                                           to notify the Commission thereof.
The appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                           Having received no communication from the Greek
1 . annul the Commission decision of 30 September 1992                     Government concerning measures adopted in order to
     and set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance             incorporate the abovementioned Directive into the Greek
     of 12 January 1995 (T-102/92 ) f 1 );                                 legal order, the Commission on 12 March 1993 addressed
                                                                           to the Government in question a formal letter before action.
                                                                           Since the Greek Government did not reply to that letter, the
2.   order the Commission to bear the costs of the                         Commission on 4 July 1994 issued a reasoned opinion
     proceedings , including those incurred by the intervenor,             giving the Greek Government a period of two months
     Parker Pen Ltd .                                                      within which to comply with the Directive .


title: Case C-336/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Sonthofen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Sebat Ince (Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Games of chance — Public monopoly on betting on sporting competitions — Prior administrative authorisation — Exclusion of private operators — Collection of bets on behalf of an operator established in another Member State — Criminal penalties — National provision contrary to EU law — Exclusion — Transition to a system providing for the grant of a limited number of licences to private operators — Principles of transparency and impartiality — Directive 98/34/EC — Article 8 — Technical regulations — Rules on services — Obligation to notify)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Sonthofen — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Sebat Ince
   (Case C-336/14) (1)

   ((Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Games of chance - Public monopoly on betting on sporting competitions - Prior administrative authorisation - Exclusion of private operators - Collection of bets on behalf of an operator established in another Member State - Criminal penalties - National provision contrary to EU law - Exclusion - Transition to a system providing for the grant of a limited number of licences to private operators - Principles of transparency and impartiality - Directive 98/34/EC - Article 8 - Technical regulations - Rules on services - Obligation to notify))
   (2016/C 106/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Sonthofen

      Party in the main proceedings

   Sebat Ince

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the criminal prosecution authorities of a Member State from penalising the unauthorised intermediation of sporting bets by a private operator on behalf of another private operator lacking an authorisation to organise sporting bets in that Member State, but holding a licence in another Member State, in the case where the obligation to hold an authorisation to organise or intermediate sporting bets forms part of a public monopoly regime deemed by the national courts to be contrary to EU law. Article 56 TFEU precludes such a penalty, even where a private operator may, in theory, obtain an authorisation to organise or intermediate sporting bets, to the extent that knowledge of the procedure for granting such an authorisation is not guaranteed and the public monopoly regime with regard to sporting bets, deemed by the national courts to be contrary to EU law, has persisted despite the adoption of such a procedure.

               2.

               Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that the draft version of regional legislation which maintains in force, throughout the region concerned, the provisions of legislation common to the various regions of a Member State that has expired is subject to the notification obligation laid down in that Article 8(1), in so far as that draft version contains technical regulations within the meaning of Article 1 of the directive, with the result that failure to comply with that obligation renders those regulations unenforceable against an individual in the context of criminal proceedings. Such an obligation is not called into question by the fact that that common legislation had previously been notified to the Commission at the draft stage pursuant to Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34 and expressly provided for the possibility of an extension, which possibility, however, was not exercised.

               3.

               Article 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from penalising the unauthorised intermediation of sporting bets on its territory on behalf of an economic operator holding a licence to organise sporting bets in another Member State:

                           —

                           where the issue of an authorisation to organise sporting bets is subject to the obtaining of a licence by that operator in accordance with a procedure for the award of licences, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, if the referring court finds that that procedure does not observe the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality and the consequent obligation of transparency, and

                           —

                           to the extent that, despite the entry into force of a national provision permitting the grant of licences to private operators, application of the provisions establishing a public monopoly regime with regard to the organisation and intermediation of sporting bets, deemed by the national courts to be contrary to EU law, has persisted in practice.

      (1)  OJ C 339, 29.9.2014.