title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2001 in Case C-390/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano): Giovanni Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale Repressione Frodi — Ministero per le Politiche Agricole (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack of jurisdiction — Inadmissibility)

text:
14.7.2001                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/31
                       ORDER OF THE COURT                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Third Chamber)                                                              (Sixth Chamber)
                         of 15 December 2000
                                                                                of 19 January 2001
in Case C-51/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata):                      in Case C-390/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
         Massimo Triumbari v Questore di Potenza (1)                            the Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano):
                                                                                Giovanni Colapietro against Ispettorato Generale
                                                                                Repressione Frodi — Ministero per le Politiche Agricole (1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
     identical to one on which the Court has already ruled)
                                                                                (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lack of jurisdiction
                                                                                — Inadmissibility)
                             (2001/C 200/55)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/56)
                       (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-51/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per la Basilicata (Italy) for a prelimi-
nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                        In Case C-390/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
between Massimo Triumbari and Questore di Potenza (inter-                       EC from the Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano
veners: Ministro delle Finanze, Ministro dell’Interno) on the                   (Bari District Court, Rutigliano Division) for a preliminary
interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty on freedom                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
to provide services — the Court (Third Chamber), composed                       Giovanni Colapietro and Ispettorato Generale Repressione
of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet                      Frodi — Ministero per le Politiche Agricole — on the
(Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate                     Community rules on compulsory distillation — the Court
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 15 Decem-                    (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),
ber 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                            President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric
                                                                                and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                                General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 19 January
The EC Treaty provisions on freedom to provide services do not                  2001, in which it has ruled:
preclude national legislation, such as the Italian legislation, which
reserves unto certain bodies the right to take bets on sporting events,
if that legislation is in fact justified by social-policy objectives designed   There is no need to give a reply to the questions submitted by the
to limit the harmful effects of such activities and if the restrictions         Tribunale di Bari, Sezione Distaccata di Rutigliano, by order of
which it imposes are not disproportionate in relation to those                  19 September 2000.
objectives.
                                                                                (1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.


title: Case F-15/15: Action brought on 26 January 2015 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/40

         Action brought on 26 January 2015 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-15/15)
   (2015/C 127/55)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Mock, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions of the defendant fixing the flat-rate payment corresponding to the cost of travel from the place of employment to the place of origin pursuant to Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of 22 October 2013.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul salary statements 6/2014 and 7/2014 in the form of the decision of the defendant of 15 October 2014, notified on 17 October 2014, in so far as it fixes the flat-rate payment corresponding to the cost of travel from the place of employment to the place of origin;

               —

               in the event of annulment, oblige the defendant to adjust the flat-rate payment with due regard to the grounds underlying the annulment;

               —

               decide on the costs in accordance with the applicable provisions.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  26 January 2006  in Case C-514/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services — Private security undertakings and services — Conditions — Legal personality — Minimum share capital — Security — Minimum number of staff — Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC — Recognition of professional qualifications)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 26 January 2006
   in Case C-514/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services - Private security undertakings and services - Conditions - Legal personality - Minimum share capital - Security - Minimum number of staff - Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC - Recognition of professional qualifications)
   (2006/C 86/06)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-514/03 Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and L. Escobar Guerrero, Agents) v Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Braquehais Conesa, Agent) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 8 December 2003 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force provisions of Law No 23/1992 of 30 July 1992 on private security services and Royal Decree No 2364/1994 of 9 December 1994 approving the Regulation on private security services which impose a series of requirements on foreign private security undertakings for the pursuit of their activities in Spain, namely the obligation:

                           —

                           to be constituted as legal persons;

                           —

                           to have a specific minimum share capital;

                           —

                           to pay a security to a Spanish body;

                           —

                           to employ a minimum number of workers, insofar as the undertaking in question carries out its activities in fields other than the transport and distribution of explosives;

                           —

                           generally, for members of their staff, to hold a special administrative authorisation issued by the Spanish authorities, and
                           by failing to adopt the provisions necessary to ensure recognition of attestations of professional competence for the pursuit of the activity of private detective, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under, firstly, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and, secondly, Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities and to bear its own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear one quarter of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 21.02.2004.


title: Case T-203/07: Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Cemex Polska v Commission

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/40

         Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Cemex Polska v Commission
   (Case T-203/07)
   (2007/C 170/76)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Cemex Polska sp. z o. o. (represented by: F. Puel and M. Szpunar, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 1295 final of 26 March 2007 concerning the national allocation plan for greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Poland in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), in which the Commission decided that certain aspects of the Polish National Allocation Plan for CO2 Emission Allowances for 2008-2012, notified to the Commission on 30 June 2006, were not compatible with Articles 9(1) and (3), 10 and 13(2) of and the criteria set out in Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC. The decision in question reduces the carbon dioxide emission limit in 2008-2012 by 26.7 % compared to the limit proposed by Poland in the national allocation plan for emission allowances notified to the Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the applicant are the same as those of the applicant in Case T-195/07.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32).


title: Case C-285/13 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 June 2014  — Bimbo SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8 — Application for Community figurative mark Caffè KIMBO — Opposition proceedings — Earlier national word mark BIMBO — Well-known mark — Partial rejection of the opposition — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/5

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 June 2014 — Bimbo SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-285/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8 - Application for Community figurative mark Caffè KIMBO - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national word mark BIMBO - Well-known mark - Partial rejection of the opposition - Appeal manifestly inadmissible))
   2014/C 261/07
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Bimbo SA (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Café do Brasil SpA (represented by: M. Mostardini and F. Mellucci, avvocati)

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2)

               Bimbo SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-158/05: Action brought on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/26

         Action brought on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-158/05)
   (2005/C 143/41)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Braun and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing the adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2002/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive.

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 28 September 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 85, 28.03.2002, p. 40


title: Action brought on 18 August 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-280/95)

text:
No C 268/ 16             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    14 . 10 . 95
European Communities in Joined Cases T-462/93 ,                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
T-464/93 and T-470/93 between Erika Lenz and Volker                     the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
Lenz and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
Communities on 14 August 1995 by Erika Lenz and Volker
Lenz, represented by Jiirgen Schlacht, Rechtsanwalt, of                 — set aside the judgment of the Second Chamber of the
Schliiterstrafêe 22 III, D-20146 Hamburg.                                   Court of First Instance of the European Communities of
                                                                            8 June 1995 in Case T-459/93 between Siemens SA,
The appellants claim that the Court should :                                supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities,
— set aside the order of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of
      First Instance of 14 June 1995 in Joined Cases T-462/93 ,         — consequently, annul Articles 1 ( c ) and 2 of Commission
      T-464/93 and T-470/93 , disqualify Judge K. Lenaerts                  Decision 92/483/EEC of 24 June 1992 concerning aid
      from sitting as the President of the Fourth Chamber of                provided by the Brussels Regional Authorities ( Belgium )
      the Court of First Instance and, in addition, decide Cases            in favour of the activities of Siemens SA in the
      T-462/93 , T-464/93 and T-470/93 in accordance with                   data-processing and telecommunications sectors,
      the forms of order sought in each of those cases (*).
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
                                                                            proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court of
Pleas in law and arguments adduced in support:                              First Instance in Case T-459/93 .
— The contested order of the Court of First Instance was
      made in breach of the Rules of Procedure . Under                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      Article 16 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of
      Justice of the European Communities, the Court of                 Errors of law, in particular the fact that the Court of First
                                                                        Instance examined whether the contested aid constituted
      Justice should have decided to disqualify Judge Lenaerts
      and to exclude him from taking part in the contested              investment aid within the meaning applied to that term in
      order, by reason of his extensive involvement in the              Community law, instead of verifiying, as it should have
      earlier proceedings concerning the same matter.                   done, whether such aid fell within the substantive scope of
                                                                        the Belgian Law of 1959 ' introducing and coordinating
— The contested order wrongly dismissed the actions on                  measures to encourage economic expansion and the
      the ground that they were time-barred. Contrary to the            creation of new industries', as construed in Belgian law and
      assumption made in the judgment, no administrative                as approved by the Commission .
      procedure took place pursuant to Articles 90 or 9 1 of the
      Staff Regulations in relation to the applicants' claims .
      Such an administrative procedure was not required,
      since the appellants, who are not officials, are asserting
      claims in tort which, although connected with the social          Action brought on 18 August 1995 by the Commission of
      welfare of Community officials, are not subject to the              the European Communities against the Italian Republic
      rules of procedure governing claims by officials.
                                                                                ( Case C-280/95 )
i 1 ) OJ No C 33 , 5 . 2 . 1993 , p . 11 ;                                                        ( 95/C 268/36 )
      OJ No C 54 , 25 . 2 . 1993 , p . 4 ;
      OJ No C 139 , 18 . 5 . 1993 , p . 10,                              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         18 August 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu and Anders C.
                                                                        Jessen, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
Appeal brought on 16 August 1995 by Siemens SA against                   for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de
the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by the Second                      la Cruz, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-459/93 between Siemens SA,                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the
           Commission of the European Communities                        — declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under the EC Treaty, by failing to adopt the
                          ( Case C-278/95 P )                                measures necessary to comply with Commission
                             ( 95/C 268/35 )                                 Decision 93/496/EEC of 9 June 1993 concerning State
                                                                             aid procedure C 32/92 (ex NN 67/92 ) — Italy C ) (tax
 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 June 1995 by                  credit for professional road hauliers ) and in particular by
 the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                    failing to recover, with effect from the tax year 1992, the
 European Communities in Case T-459/93 between Siemens                       aid unlawfully introduced by the Ministerial Decree of
 SA, supported by the Federal Republic of Germany, and the                   28 January 1992 in favour of professional road hauliers
 Commission of the European Communities was brought                          in Italy in the form of a tax credit on income tax or on
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  municipal tax or on VAT,
 16 August 1995 by Siemens SA, represented by Michel
 Waelbroeck, Jules Stuyck and Olivier Speltdoorn, of the                 — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- 14 . 10 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 268/ 17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   — in the alternative, should the Court of First Instance
                                                                          interpret the Commission's letters of 21 January 1993
The Italian Republic has not taken any steps as yet — that is             and 4 February 1994 as expressing and repeating a
to say, two years after the adoption of Decision 93/496/EEC               decision not to pursue Mr Guérin's complaint, annul the
— to comply with the Commission's repeated calls to                       decision contained in those letters pursuant to
execute that Decision . It has merely apprised the                        Article 173 of the Treaty,
Commission of the legal and practical difficulties involved in
the implementation of the Decision and has failed to take             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
any steps to recover the aid or to make any proposal to the
Commission regarding detailed alternative arrangements
for implementing the Decision, under which the alleged                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
difficulties would be overcome . In the light of those
considerations, it must be concluded that the Italian                 There were defects in the procedure which are detrimental
Republic cannot plead impossibility of performance in                 to the appellant's interests in so far as the Court of First
relation to the decision in question.                                 Instance failed entirely:
(>) OJ No L 233 , 16 . 9 . 1993 , p . 10 .                            — to analyse the exchange of letters between June and
                                                                          August 1994 enabling it to rule on the facts and to
                                                                          address the pleas and submissions of the appellant
                                                                          relating thereto,
                                                                      — to draw the consequences from the Commission's
                                                                          refusal to produce evidence to justify the procedure
                                                                          resorted to by the Commission to more or less abstain
Appeal brought on 24 August 1995 by Guérin Automobiles                    from acting ( holding letter ).
against the judgment delivered on 27 June 1995 by the
Third Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                    The Court of First Instance made an error of law in
T-l 86/94 between Guérin Automobiles and Commission of                determining the nature of the letter of 13 June 1994 as an
                 the European Communities                             act, an error aggravated by the failure to compare it with the
                       Case C-282/95 P                                subsequent correspondence from Guérin Automobiles,
                                                                      which was not considered at all . The Court was obliged to
                           ( 95/C 268/37 )                            accept the Commission's own description of it — a holding
                                                                      letter — which, according to the settled case-law of the
An appeal against the judgment delivered by the Third                 Court of Justice relating to acts, means that it cannot be a
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                'definition of position' terminating the failure to act.
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-l 86/94
between Guérin Automobiles and Commission of the                      The Court of First Instance could not have based its decision
European Communities was brought before the Court of                  on the information gathered by the Commission and relied
Justice of the European Communities on 24 August 1995 by              upon by the latter to justify its reply when there was no trace
Guérin Automobiles , represented by Jean-Claude                       of that information in the case-file .
Fourgoux, of the Paris and Brussels Bars , with an address for
service at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue Béatrix de
Bourbon .                                                             The Court of First Instance could not fail to recognize the
                                                                      breach of the principle audi et alteram partem and admit
                                                                      that the Commission could have referred in its letter of
The appellant claims that the Court should :                          13 June 1994 to an alleged procedure, alleged to be similar,
                                                                      the alleged existence of which justified the failure to deal
— annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third            with the Guérin Automobiles case and concerning which
     Chamber, extended composition ) of the European                  Commission staff have refused to produce any evidence
     Communities of 27 June 1 995 in Case T-l 86/94 Guérin            whatsoever in court .
    Automobiles v . Commission of the European
     Communities , save as regards costs,
                                                                      The Court of First Instance could not, without breaching the
                                                                      general principle of the right of access to the courts, state
and, ruling on the substance of the action,                           that the letter of 13 June 1994 had the effect in this instance
                                                                      of depriving the applicant of any legal remedy.
having regard to the arguments submitted at first
instance ,
                                                                      Since it was impossible to contest the principle of the right of
— declare, pursuant to Article 175 of the Treaty, that the            access to the courts, the Court of First Instance wrongly held
     Commission has failed to take a decision with regard to          that the appellant was henceforth entitled to obtain a
     the complainant, whereas the latter had requested it in          definitive Commission decision which was capable of ' being
     due time to do so ,                                              the subject-matter of an action for annulment', when there is


title: Case C-28/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 23 January 2015 — Koninklijke KPN NV and Others v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 23 January 2015 — Koninklijke KPN NV and Others v Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)
   (Case C-28/15)
   (2015/C 138/40)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Koninklijke KPN NV, KPN BV, T-Mobile Netherlands BV, Tele2 Nederland BV, Ziggo BV, Vodafone Libertel BV, UPC Nederland BV and UPC Business BV

      Defendant: Autoriteit Consument en Markt (ACM)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive, (1) read in conjunction with Articles 8 and 13 of the Access Directive, (2) be interpreted as meaning that, in principle, in a dispute concerning the lawfulness of a cost-oriented scale of charges imposed by the national regulatory authority (NRA) in the wholesale call termination market, a national court is permitted to make a ruling which does not accord with the European Commission Recommendation of 7 May 2009 on the Regulatory Treatment of Fixed and Mobile Termination Rates in the EU (2009/396/EC), (3) in which pure BULRIC is recommended as the appropriate price regulation measure for call termination markets, if, in that national court’s view, this is required on the basis of the facts in the case brought before it and/or on the basis of considerations of national or supranational law?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: to what extent is the national court permitted, in assessing a cost-oriented price regulation measure:

                           a.

                           in the light of Article 8(3) of the Framework Directive, to evaluate the NRA’s argument that the development of the internal market is promoted by reference to the degree to which the functioning of the internal market is in fact influenced?

                           b.

                           to assess, in the light of the policy objectives and regulatory principles laid down in Article 8 of the Framework Directive and Article 13 of the Access Directive, whether the price regulation measure:

                                       (i)

                                       is proportionate;

                                       (ii)

                                       is appropriate;

                                       (iii)

                                       has been applied proportionately and is justified?

                           c.

                           to require the NRA to demonstrate adequately that:

                                       (i)

                                       the policy objective, referred to in Article 8(2) of the Framework Directive, that the NRAs should promote competition in the provision of electronic communications networks and electronic communications services is genuinely being attained and that users are genuinely deriving maximum benefit in terms of choice, price and quality;

                                       (ii)

                                       the policy objective, referred to in Article 8(3) of the Framework Directive, that NRAs should contribute to the development of the internal market is genuinely being attained; and

                                       (iii)

                                       the policy objective, referred to in Article 8(4) of the Framework Directive, that the interests of the citizens should be promoted is genuinely being attained?

                           d.

                           in the light of Article 16(3) of the Framework Directive, and of Article 8(2) and (4) of the Access Directive, when assessing whether the price regulation measure is appropriate, to take into account the fact that the measure has been imposed on the market on which the regulated undertakings possess significant market power but, in the form chosen (pure BULRIC), has the effect of promoting one of the objectives of the Framework Directive, namely the interests of end users, on another market which has not been earmarked for regulation?

      (1)  Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33).

      (2)  Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive) (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7).

      (3)  OJ 2009 L 124, p. 67.


title: Case T-29/02: Action brought on 13 February 2002 by S.A. Global Electronic Finance Management against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.5.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/27
Action brought on 13 February 2002 by S.A. Global                       —     There is no proof of any payment having been made in
Electronic Finance Management against the Commission                          error by the Commission.
                of the European Communities
                                                                        —     The Commission communicated for the first time its
                         (Case T-29/02)                                       change of position in respect of acceptance of the project
                                                                              costs only six months after the completion of the project,
                                                                              and three months after the Final Review Report. By so
                        (2002/C 118/43)                                       doing, the defendant did not communicate its objections
                                                                              within a reasonable time.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        —     The Commission has not complied with the general
                                                                              principles of protection of legitimate expectations, of due
                                                                              process and of execution of a contract ‘in good faith’.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 February 2002 by S.A. Global
Electronic Finance Management, represented by Mr Matthias
E. Storme and Ms Ann Gobien of Keuleneer, Storme, Vanneste,
Van Varenbergh, Verhelst, Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 22 February 2002 by Ricosmos B.V.
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
—     declare the application admissible and well-founded;
                                                                                (Case T-53/02)
—     order the Commission to pay to the applicant the
      equivalent in Euro of the sum of 40 693 ECU;
                                                                                (2002/C 118/44)
—     declare the Commission’s attempt to recover from the
      applicant the sum of 273 516 ECU unfounded and                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
      therefore order the Commission to issue a ‘credit note’
      for the amount of 273 516 ECU;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 22 February 2002 by Ricosmos
                                                                        B.V., established at Delfzijl (Netherlands), represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Martijn Hendrik Fleers, Michel Chatelin and Pierre Metzler,
                                                                        lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The object of the present application, pursuant to an arbi-
tration clause within the meaning of Article 238 [ex                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Article 181] of the EC Treaty, is an order requiring the
Commission, representing the European Community, to pay
the Applicant the sum of 40 693 ECU, in respect of the                  (1) annul the Commission’s decision C(2001) 3663 final of
execution of a contract concluded under the ESPRIT-Pro-                       16 November 2001 in Case REM 09/00;
gramme, aiming to stimulate the development of financial
infrastructure, systems and transaction mechanisms necessary            (2) order the Commission to pay the costs.
for the successful growth of electronic commerce within the
European Union. The Law of Belgium is the applicable law.
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits as follows:        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     It executed its contractual tasks correctly, as stated
      repeatedly by the Commission during the project                   The applicant is the grantee of various customs permits
      execution and confirmed by the final Review Report. The           enabling it to organise Community transit. In that context, the
      amount of the account submitted by the applicant to               applicant organised various shipments of cigarettes to the
      the Commission for payment was justified and well                 Czech Republic under the rules governing external Community
      documented. There should be accordingly no grounds on             transit.In the case of certain of those shipments, dating from
      which the Commission may claim repayment of any                   1994, it subsequently became apparent that fraud had been
      amount.                                                           committed by third parties.


title: Case C-417/16 P: Appeal brought on 27 July 2016 by August Storck KG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 May 2016 in Case T-806/14: August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/3

         Appeal brought on 27 July 2016 by August Storck KG against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 10 May 2016 in Case T-806/14: August Storck KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-417/16 P)
   (2016/C 428/04)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: August Storck KG (represented by: I. Rohr, P. Goldenbaum, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 10 May 2016 in case T-806/14

               —

               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal in case R0644/2014-5, alternatively remit the case back to the General Court, if necessary

               —

               order EUIPO to pay its own costs and those of the appellant before the Court of Justice, the General Court and the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               I.

               First Ground of Appeal: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009 (1) — Application of wrong Criteria

                           1.

                           The General Court wrongly requires for the mark to be distinctive that it ‘departs significantly from the standard or customs of the sector’. It applies the test for three-dimensional trademarks consisting of the appearance of the goods themselves without a word or graphical element, which test is stricter than the test for normal marks. This stricter test should not have been applied because the mark applied for is a two-dimensional mark that contains a graphical element. The application of the stricter test contradicts well-established case law.

                           2.

                           The General Court errs when it bases its finding on the judgment in Storck v OHIM, C-25/05 P, EU:C:2006:422. That case is in no way comparable with the present case as it related to a (packed) product without any graphical and/or word element.

                           3.

                           The application of stricter rules than those applicable to word marks and device marks is further not justified because the scope of the mark applied for is even narrower than the scope of a registration covering the graphical element only would be. By applying the stricter rules the General Court infringed Article 7(l)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009, which provides for that (only) trademarks which are devoid of any distinctive character are not to be registered.

               II.

               Second Ground of Appeal: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No. 207/2009 Non-application of the Principle of Speciality

                           4.

                           The General Court qualified the relevant goods in an overly broad sense as inexpensive, everyday consumer goods, the purchase of which is not preceded by a lengthy period of reflection. This led to the General Court’s wrong conclusion that the relevant public would have a low level of attention particularly with respect to the features on the packaging.

                           5.

                           The General Court should rather have analysed with respect to the very specific products (i.e., confectionary, chocolate, chocolate products, pastries and ice-creams) what level of attention the consumers do apply and what role the very specific packaging as covered by the mark applied for thereby plays. The General Court missed to look at the very typical purchase situation with respect to those products.

                           6.

                           By not taking into account the specifics of the relevant goods the General Court did not apply the principle of speciality. Had the General Court done it correctly, it would have taken into account that consumers of the relevant goods are used to give a high level of attention to the colours, the shape and the design of the packaging. The consumers of the relevant goods would have no problems at all to identify the source of the products on the mere basis of the combination of lines, colours and shapes as it is covered by the mark applied for.

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


title: Case C-204/05: Action brought on 10 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/9

         Action brought on 10 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-204/05)
   (2005/C 171/16)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Stromsky and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that; the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty, by requiring Class 1 distributors of medical equipment, established in other States of the Community, to be approved in Belgium and, by requiring doctors, psychologists, paramedical staff and social workers, in so far as they are attached to a specialist centre, to obtain supplies of sterile material from pharmacists, distributors, wholesaler trader, importers and manufacturers approved by the Belgian Ministry of Public Health;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission challenges the legislation in force in Belgium, which requires distributors to be approved where they wish to sell sterile material bearing the EC marking to doctors, nurses, psychologists, paramedical staff or social workers. That obligation is imposed indiscriminately on distributors established in Belgium or in another Member State. However, it impedes the sale of medical equipment to that specific public by distributors established outside Belgium.


title: Case C-95/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 27 February 2014  — Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC), Unione Nazionale dei Consumatori di Prodotti in Pelle, Materie Concianti, Accessori e Componenti (Unicopel) v FS Retail, Luna srl, Gatsby srl

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Milano (Italy) lodged on 27 February 2014 — Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC), Unione Nazionale dei Consumatori di Prodotti in Pelle, Materie Concianti, Accessori e Componenti (Unicopel) v FS Retail, Luna srl, Gatsby srl
   (Case C-95/14)
   2014/C 245/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Milano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Unione Nazionale Industria Conciaria (UNIC), Unione Nazionale dei Consumatori di Prodotti in Pelle, Materie Concianti, Accessori e Componenti (Unicopel)

      Defendants: FS Retail, Luna srl, Gatsby srl

      Questions referred

               (1)

               Do Articles 34, 35, and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, correctly construed, preclude the application of Article 3(2) of [Italian] Law No 8 of 14 January 2013 — under which it is compulsory, in the case of products obtained from working carried out in foreign countries but which use the Italian word ‘pelle’ [fine leather], to affix a label thereto indicating the country of origin — to products made of leather lawfully worked or placed on the market in other Member States of the European Union, since that law constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction prohibited under Article [34] TFEU and not justified by Article 36 of that Treaty?

               (2)

               Do Articles 34, 35, and 36 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, correctly construed, preclude the application of Article 3(2) of [Italian] Law No 8 of 14 January 2013 — under which it is compulsory, in the case of products obtained from working carried out in foreign countries but which use the Italian word ‘pelle’, to affix a label thereto indicating the country of origin — to products made of leather obtained from working carried out in non-member countries and not already lawfully placed on the market in the European Union, since that law constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction prohibited under Article [34] TFEU and not justified by Article 36 of that Treaty?

               (3)

               Do Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 94/11/EC (1), correctly construed, preclude the application of Article 3(2) of [Italian] Law No 8 of 14 January 2013 — under which it is compulsory, in the case of products obtained from working carried out in foreign countries but which use the Italian word ‘pelle’, to affix a label thereto indicating the country of origin — to products made of leather lawfully worked, or lawfully placed on the market, in other Member States of the European Union?

               (4)

               Do Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 94/11/EC, (2) correctly construed, preclude the application of Article 3(2) of [Italian] Law No 8 of 14 January 2013, under which it is compulsory, in the case of products made of leather obtained from working carried out in non-member countries and not already lawfully placed on the market in the European Union, to affix a label thereto indicating the country of origin?

               (5)

               Does Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013, correctly construed, preclude the application of Article 3(2) of [Italian] Law No 8 of 14 January 2013 — under which it is compulsory, in the case of products obtained from working carried out in foreign countries but which use the Italian word ‘pelle’, to affix a label thereto indicating the country of origin — to products made of leather obtained from working carried out in Member States of the European Union or not already lawfully placed on the market in the European Union?

               (6)

               Does Article 60 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013, correctly construed, preclude the application of Article 3(2) of [Italian] Law No 8 of 14 January 2013 — under which it is compulsory, in the case of products obtained from working carried out in foreign countries but which use the Italian word ‘pelle’, to affix a label thereto indicating the country of origin — to products made of leather obtained from working carried out in non-member countries and not already lawfully placed on the market in the European Union?

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 100, p. 37.

      (2)  OJ 1994 L 100, p. 37.


title: Case F-50/14: Action brought on 3 June 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/32

         Action brought on 3 June 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-50/14)
   2014/C 245/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Commission decision refusing to grant an expatriation allowance to the applicant

      Form of order sought

   The applicant requests the Civil Service Tribunal to:

               —

               annul the decision of 3 October 2013 refusing to grant an expatriation allowance to the applicant;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-466/08: Order of the President of the Court of 17 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/27

         Order of the President of the Court of 17 November 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-466/08) (1)

   2010/C 51/44

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 327, 20.12.2008.


title: Case C-114/09: Action brought on 25 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/28

         Action brought on 25 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-114/09)
   2009/C 113/51
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Adsera Ribera and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/68/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 amending Council Directive 77/91/EEC (2) as regards the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, or in any event, by not communicating them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period laid down for the transposition of Directive 2006/68/EC into national law ended on 15 April 2008.

      (1)  OJ L 264, p. 32

      (2)  OJ L 26, p.1


title: Case C-621/13 P: Appeal brought on 28 November 2013 by Orange, formerly France Télécom against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-258/10 Orange v Commission

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/8

         Appeal brought on 28 November 2013 by Orange, formerly France Télécom against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-258/10 Orange v Commission
   (Case C-621/13 P)
   2014/C 39/15
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Orange, formerly France Télécom (represented by: H. Viaene and D. Gillet, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Départment des Hauts-de-Seine, Sequalum SAS

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 16 September 2013 in Case T-258/10 Orange v European Commission and, if the Court considers that it has available to it all the evidence necessary in order to give final judgment on the substance of the case, annul Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 final of 30 September 2009 relating to compensation for costs for a public service delegation for the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Départment des Hauts-de-Seine (State Aid N 331/2008 — France);

               —

               in the alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for the proceedings to be continued;

               —

               order the Commission, the Départment des Hauts-de-Seine and Sequalum to pay the entire costs of the action, except those costs incurred by the French Republic;

               —

               declare that the French Republic is to bear its own costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on four grounds in support of its appeal.
   First, the appellant submits that the General Court infringed its obligation to state reasons, based on Article 36 and the first paragraph of Article 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, because it ruled inadequately and in a contradictory way on a ground relating to absence of market deficiency. The appellant complains, in particular, that the General Court rejected its argument that the THD 92 project could not be considered to be a service of general economic interest based on the absence of market deficiency arising from the presence of competing operators offering analogue services.
   Second, the appellant complains that the General Court erred in law in its assessment of when the existence of such a market deficiency must be determined. Thus, according to the appellant, it is at the moment when the measure intended to address a market deficiency is adopted that the existence of that deficiency must be determined.
   Third, the appellant alleges that the General Court erred in law in its interpretation of paragraph 78 of the Guidelines (1) by considering that the ‘detailed analysis’ to which every State Aid envisaged in a traditional black area must be subject, does not entail the initiation of the formal investigation procedure laid down by Article 108(2) TFEU.
   Lastly, the appellant submits that the General Court’s finding, according to which the areas in which the internal rate of return is between 9 and 10,63 % are not the subject of compensation, is manifestly incorrect. The legal consequences drawn from that finding by the General Court, namely the absence of overcompensation, and consequently, compliance of the project at issue with the third criterion of the judgment in Altmark, are therefore incorrect.

      (1)  Communication from the Commission — Community Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks (OJ 2009, C 235, p. 7).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 23 March 1995 in Case C-365/93: Commission of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 89/48/EEC - Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration)

text:
13. 5. 95          UËN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No- C 119/1
                                                                 I
                                                          (Information)
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
                       (Sixth Chamber)                                  Directive 89/48/EEC of21 December 1 988 on a general
                                                                        system for the recognition ofhigher-education diplomas
                     of 23 March 1995                                   award on completion of professional education and
     in Case C-365/93 : Commission of the European                      training of at least three years ' duration, the Hellenic
           Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( : )                       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 89/48/EEC —                  EEC Treaty;
Recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on
completion ofprofessional education and training ofatleast          2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
                    three years ' duration)
                         ( 95/C 119/01 )
                                                                    3 , orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                (Language of the case: Greek)                       (!) OJ No C 244, 8 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                                    (2) OJ No L 19, 24. 1 . 1989, p. 16 .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
        published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-365/93 : Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: D. Gouloussis ) v. Hellenic Republic
(Agents: V. Kontolaimos and V. Pelekou) — application for
a declaration that by failing to adopt and by failing to                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
communicate to the Commission within the prescribed                                      of 28 March 1995
period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
needed to comply fully with Council Directive 89/48/EEC of          in Case C-324/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition            the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division)): The
of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of               Queen v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,
professional education and training of at least three years'         ex-parte Evans Medical Ltd and Macfarlan Smith Ltd ( a )
duration (2 ) the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its        (Free movement ofgoods — Importation ofa narcotic drug
obligations under the EEC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth                                         (diamorphine))
Chamber), composed of F. A. Schockweiler, President of the                                    ( 95/C 119/02 )
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray
(Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges : C. O. Lenz;
Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for                       (Language of the case: English)
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 23 March 1995 , in
which it:
                                                                    In Case C-324/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    of the EEC Treaty by the High Court of Justice ( Queen's
1 , declares that by failing to adopt within the prescribed         Bench Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
    period the laws, regulations and administrative                 pending before that court between The Queen and Secretary


title: Case C-331/09: Action brought on 17 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/10

         Action brought on 17 August 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-331/09)
   2009/C 312/17
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by its failure to comply with the obligations resulting from the Commission Decision of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C 23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for the steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (notified under document number C(2007) 5087), published in OJ 2008 L 116, p. 26, and in any event by not informing the Commission of compliance with those obligations, the Republic of Poland has acted in breach of the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the abovementioned decision;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission adopted, on 23 October 2007, a decision ordering recovery of aid from the Polish steel producer Technologie Buczek Group, in particular from Technologie Buczek SA (‘TB’) and its subsidiaries Huta Buczek (‘HB’) and Buczek Automotive (‘BA’), which implemented in an unlawful manner a previously approved restructuring plan and subsequently received unlawful operating aid. That operating aid took the form of exemption from public-law liabilities. The Republic of Poland was notified of the decision on 24 October 2007 by way of its Permanent Representative to the European Union. At the same time the Commission called on the Republic of Poland to take all measures necessary to ensure recovery of the aid which had been unlawfully granted.
   By the date on which the action was brought, the aid granted to HB and BA had not yet been repaid.
   According to the Polish authorities, apart from obstacles of a purely technical nature, the reason for the significant delay in recovering the aid lies in the provisions of the Polish law on insolvency. The Polish authorities explained that the State aid referred to in the decision took the form of exemption for TB from its liabilities, even though its subsidiaries were the actual beneficiaries of the aid. In that situation TB was formally accountable for all liabilities, including the amounts to be recovered from HB and BA. The provisions of Polish law allegedly make it impossible for such claims to be written off, with the exception of cases involving ‘complete impossibility’. In addition, if these claims are submitted, the official receiver dealing with the insolvency of TB is obliged to pay out the amounts owing, which may include the amounts to be recovered from the subsidiaries. Furthermore, if those amounts are recovered there will no longer be any legal basis on which recovery of those same amounts may be sought from HB and BA.
   The Commission, however, takes the view that it is not sufficient that the Republic of Poland availed itself of all measures open to it. The application of those measures must result in the effective and immediate implementation of the decision, as otherwise it will be necessary to assume that the Republic of Poland has not complied with its obligations. Breach of the obligation on a Member State to recover arises when the steps taken by that Member State have had no influence on the actual recovery of a particular amount.


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2010 in Case E-2/10 — Þór Kolbeinsson v The Icelandic State (Safety and health of workers — Directives 89/391/EEC and 92/57/EEC — Article 3 of the EEA Agreement — Employers’ and employees’ liability for work accidents — State liability)

text:
               12.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/11

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 10 December 2010
   in Case E-2/10
   Þór Kolbeinsson v The Icelandic State
   (Safety and health of workers — Directives 89/391/EEC and 92/57/EEC — Article 3 of the EEA Agreement — Employers’ and employees’ liability for work accidents — State liability)
   2011/C 141/11
   In Case E-2/10 between Þór Kolbeinsson and the Icelandic State — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), Iceland, concerning the interpretation of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and of Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Save in exceptional circumstances it is not compatible with Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and Council Directive 92/57/EEC of 24 June 1992 on the implementation of minimum safety and health requirements at temporary or mobile construction sites (eighth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) interpreted in light of Article 3 of the EEA Agreement to hold a worker liable under national tort law for all, or the greater share, of the losses suffered as a result of an accident at work due to his own contributory negligence when it has been established that the employer had not on his own initiative complied with rules regarding safety and conditions in the work place.
               Exceptional circumstances may exist where the employee has caused the accident wilfully or by acting with gross negligence, but even in such cases a complete denial of compensation would be disproportionate and not in compliance with the Directives except in extreme cases of the employee being substantially more to blame for the accident than the employer.

               2.

               An EEA State may be held liable for breach of the rule on contributory negligence inherent in Directives 89/391/EEC and 92/57/EEC interpreted in light of Article 3 of the EEA Agreement provided that the breach is sufficiently serious. It is for the national court to decide in accordance with the settled case law on State liability for breaches of EEA law whether this condition is fulfilled in the case before it.


title: Case C-13/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 15 January 2014  — Municipiul Piatra Neamţ v Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău (Romania) lodged on 15 January 2014 — Municipiul Piatra Neamţ v Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice
   (Case C-13/14)
   2014/C 261/19
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Municipiul Piatra Neamţ

      Defendant: Ministerul Dezvoltării Regionale şi Administraţiei Publice
   By Order of 12 June 2014, the Court (Eighth Chamber) has declared that the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-311/96: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 93/38/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
No C 212/6           i EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12 . 7. 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                        ( Fifth Chamber)
                                                                      (') OJ No C 294 , 5 . 10 . 1996 .
                        of 29 May 1997
in Joined Cases C-282/96 and C-283/96: Commission of
      the European Communities v. French Republic ( J )
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose
           Directives 91/157/EEC and 93/86/EEC)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( 97/C 212/ 11
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                 (Language of the case: French)                                                 of 29 May 1997
                                                                            in Case C-3 11/96: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. French Republic (')
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      Directive 93/38/EEC — Failure to transpose within the
                                                                                prescribed period)
In Joined Cases C-282/96 and C-283/96 : Commission of                                             ( 97IC 212/ 12 )
the European Communities (Agent: G. zur Hausen,
assisted by J. -J. Evrard ) v. French Republic (Agents: C. de
Salins and R. Nadal ) — application for a declaration that,                           (Language of the case: French)
by failing to adopt within the periods prescribed the laws,
regulations and administrative measures necessary to
comply with                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
— Council Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on
     batteries and accumulators containing certain                    In Case C-3 11 /96 : Commission of the European
     dangerous substances ( OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 ,              Communities (Agent: Hendrik van Lier) v. French
     p. 38 ), and                                                     Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins and Philippe
                                                                      Martinet ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
                                                                      to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations
— Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of 4 October 1993                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     adapting to technical progress Directive 91 /157/EEC             Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993
     ( OJ No L 264, 23 . 10 . 1993 , p. 51 ),                         coordinating the procurement procedures of entities
                                                                      operating in the water, energy, transport and
                                                                      telecommunications sectors ( OJ No L 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 ,
or by failing to communicate those measures, the French               p. 84 ) and, in the alternative, by failing to inform the
Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under              Commission forthwith of the adoption of such measures,
those Directives — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed              the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,              under the Directive and in particular Article 45 thereof —
 C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P.                   the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,               President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris,
 Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                   P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges;
 judgment on 29 May 1997, in which it:                                C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                      given a judgment on 29 May 1997, in which it:
 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the periods
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative               1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     measures necessary to comply with                                     period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                           provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     — Council Directive 91 /157/EEC of 18 March 1991                      93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the
          on batteries and accumulators containing certain                 procurement procedures of entities operating in the
          dangerous substances, and                                        water, energy, transport and telecommunications
                                                                           sectors, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           obligations under Article 45 ( 1 ) of that Directive;
     — Commission Directive 93/86/EEC of 4 October
          1993 adapting to technical progress Directive 91 /
          157/EEC,                                                     2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 354, 23 . 11 . 1996 .
      the French Republic has failed to comply with its
      obligations pursuant to Article 11 of Directive 91 /157/
      EEC and Article 7 of Directive 93/86/EEC;


title: Case C-91/07: Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/25

         Action brought on 19 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-91/07)
   (2007/C 82/47)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and E. De Persio, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/86/EC (1) of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification, or at any rate by not informing the Commission thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time for transposing Directive 2003/86/EC expired on 3 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.


title: Case C-611/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Hansa Metallwerke AG and Others v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Article 23(2) — Ceiling of 10 % of turnover — Obligation to state reasons — Protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Hansa Metallwerke AG and Others v European Commission, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-611/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Coordination of selling prices and exchange of sensitive business information - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Article 23(2) - Ceiling of 10 % of turnover - Obligation to state reasons - Protection of legitimate expectations))
   (2017/C 104/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Hansa Metallwerke AG, Hansa Nederland BV, Hansa Italiana Srl, Hansa Belgium, Hansa Austria GmbH (represented by: S. Cappellari, H.-J. Hellmann and C. Malz, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and R. Sauer, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Hansa Metallwerke AG, Hansa Nederland BV, Hansa Italiana Srl, Hansa Belgium and Hansa Austria GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case T-285/07: Action brought on 18 July 2007 — Italy v Parliament and Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/15

         Action brought on 18 July 2007 — Italy v Parliament and Commission
   (Case T-285/07)
   (2007/C 223/25)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendants: European Parliament and Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/95/07 to constitute a reserve pool for 20 posts of Administrator (AD5) in the field of ‘Information Science (Library/Documentation)’, published only in the English, French and German versions of the
                     Official Journal of the European Union C 103A of 8 May 2007.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-156/07 Spain v Commission.


title: Case T-400/14: Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/39

         Action brought on 4 June 2014 — Premo v OHIM — Prema Semiconductor (PREMO)
   (Case T-400/14)
   2014/C 261/65
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Premo, SL (Campanillas, Spain) (represented by: E. Cornu, F. de Visscher and E. De Gryse, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prema Semiconductor GmbH (Mainz, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 April 2014 in Case R 1000/2013-5;

               —

               Subsidiarily, annul the contested decision to the extent that it upheld the opposition regarding ‘inductors’, ‘transformers’ and ‘noise filters’;

               —

               Order OHIM, and if appropriate the intervening party, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The international registration designating the European Union for the figurative mark containing the word element ‘PREMO’, for goods in Class 9 — International registration designating the European Union No 973 341

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Prema Semiconductor GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘PREMA’ for goods in Class 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was partially dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Rule 22(6) of Commission Regulation No. 2868/95 and the rights of defence of the applicant;

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 24 December 1997 by Transfluvia NV against the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union (Case T-611/97)

text:
20.2.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 55/33
In support of their plea in law, the applicants argue that          Menen (Belgium), represented by P. Cavenaille and K.
the Council has failed to comply with the duty to state             Tanghe, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in
reasons pursuant to Article 190 of the Treaty. The Council          Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt, 62, avenue
has failed to explain adequately why release of the                 Guillaume.
documents to which access has been refused should be
contrary to the public interest'. Since the reason given
consists merely in a standard reference to opinions drafted         The applicant claims that the Court should:
by the Legal Services being exempted en bloc from the
right of access, without any kind of specific consideration
being paid as to whether the interests invoked regarding            Ð declare the application admissible and well founded,
the maintenance of legal certainty and the stability of
Community law apply in regard to the documents
requested, the decision must on that ground alone be                Ð rule that the defendants are liable for the damage
annulled as being vitiated by fundamental procedural                    suffered by the applicant,
defects.
                                                                    Ð consequently, order the defendants jointly and
The applicants further argue that the decision is contrary              severally to pay a sum provisionally fixed at
to fundamental principles of law concerning application of              BEF 46 655 281, subject to increase or decrease during
the Treaty, including in particular the principle in force on           the course of the proceedings, together with 8 %
transparency in the decision-making process (see                        interest from 1 January 1993, the date on which the
Declaration No 17 in the Final Act to the Treaty on                     damage was effectively suffered, to the date of
European Union, the Code of Conduct concerning Public                   payment in full,
Access to Council and Commission Documents (93/730/
EC, OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 41), and Council Decision
93/731/EC of 20 December 1993 on public access to                   Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
Council documents (OJ L 340, 31.12.1993, p. 43)). The                   costs.
applicants submit in this connection that the exceptions to
the fundamental principle of transparency must be
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
narrowly construed, and the Council cannot therefore
exempt an entire group of documents from the right of
access merely on the basis of their origin. On the contrary,        The applicant, a firm of customs agents, complains that
an examination must be made in each case as to whether              the defendants ruined its intra-Community business with
the interests referred to in the Code of Conduct provide            effect from 1 January 1993 by abolishing customs controls
justification for exempting a specific document from the            and formalities at internal borders through a series of acts
right of access. There are in this case no such specific            which it specifies in detail. It also complains that the
interests such as could justify the refusal to grant access.        defendants failed to adopt any effective transitional
                                                                    measures enabling customs agents progressively to adapt
                                                                    to the new situation. In that regard, it pleads inter alia
In the alternative, the applicants submit that the interests
                                                                    breach of acquired rights and violation of the principle of
pleaded by the Council do not appear to apply in regard
                                                                    the protection of legitimate expectations.
to the documents which they have requested. On the
contrary, the maintenance of legal certainty and the
stability of Community law can be guaranteed by allowing
the public to discover the full basis on which the Council
has adopted secondary legal measures.
                                                                    Action brought on 24 December 1997 by Wybo NV
                                                                    against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                               and the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-619/97)
Action brought on 24 December 1997 by Transfluvia NV
against the Commission of the European Communities                                          (98/C 55/65)
           and the Council of the European Union
                      (Case T-611/97)                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
                        (98/C 55/64)
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                       Communities and the Council of the European Union was
                                                                    brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 24 December 1997 by Wybo NV, of
An action against the Commission of the European                    Poperinge (Belgium), represented by P. Cavenaille and K.
Communities and the Council of the European Union was               Tanghe, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. Schmitt, 62, avenue
Communities on 24 December 1997 by Transfluvia NV, of               Guillaume.


title: Case T-531/12: Action brought on 6 December 2012 — Tifosi Optics v OHIM — Tom Tailor (T)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/18

         Action brought on 6 December 2012 — Tifosi Optics v OHIM — Tom Tailor (T)
   (Case T-531/12)
   2013/C 46/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tifosi Optics, Inc. (Watkinsville, United States) (represented by: A. Tornato and D. Hazan, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tom Tailor GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2012 in case R 729/2011-2, in its entirety; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘T’, for goods in classes 9 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8543183

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1368232 of the figurative mark ‘T’, for goods in classes 9, 18 and 25; Community trade mark registration No 2747996 of the figurative mark ‘T’, for goods in classes 3, 6, 9, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25 and 28

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark application

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-212/16: Action brought on 9 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/40

         Action brought on 9 May 2016 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Elho Business & Sport (FRee STyLe)
   (Case T-212/16)
   (2016/C 243/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elho Business & Sport Vertriebs GmbH (Munich, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘FRee STyLe’— EU trade mark No 10 317 642

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 12 February 2016 in Case R 377/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Coexistence of the opposing marks and other signs containing the term ‘FREE STYLE’.

               —

               Failure in the decision of the Board of Appeal to fulfil the obligation to dismiss evidence adduced by the applicant outside the prescribed period as laid down in Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-531/09: Order of the President of the Court of 1 September 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 1 September 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-531/09) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 346/70
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case C-524/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Registration of old used vehicles previously registered in other Member States — Technical requirements with regard to exhaust emissions and noise pollution — Public health — Protection of the environment)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-524/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Registration of old used vehicles previously registered in other Member States - Technical requirements with regard to exhaust emissions and noise pollution - Public health - Protection of the environment)
   (2009/C 32/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: E. Riedl and G. Eberhard, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 and 30 EC — National rules making the registration of imported used vehicles previously registered in other Member States contingent upon compliance with certain technical requirements, although used vehicles already on the national market and having the same characteristics are not subject to such requirements in cases of re-registration.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by requiring, for the purposes of their first registration in Austria, that motor vehicles previously registered in other Member States, which have not undergone, because of their age, a Community type-approval procedure, comply with limit values in respect of pollutant emissions and noise which are stricter than those they initially had to comply with, in particular, the limits laid down in Council Directive 93/59/EEC of 28 June 1993 amending Directive 70/220/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles, and Council Directive 92/97/EEC of 10 November 1992 amending Directive 70/157/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the permissible sound level and the exhaust system of motor vehicles, although vehicles having the same characteristics and which are already authorised to use the roads in Austria are not subject to that requirement in cases of their re-registration in that Member State, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ 2008 C 37.