title: Case C-496/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 26 September 2011 — Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA v Fazenda Pública

text:
               10.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 362/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul (Portugal) lodged on 26 September 2011 — Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-496/11)
   2011/C 362/19
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Central Administrativo Sul

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Portugal Telecom SGPS, SA

      Respondent: Fazenda Pública

      Intervening party: Ministério Público

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Is Article 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 concerning VAT to be interpreted as precluding the Portuguese tax authorities from requiring the appellant, a holding company, to use the pro rata deduction method for all the VAT incurred in its inputs, on the basis of the fact that the main corporate purpose of that company is the management of shareholdings of other companies, even when such inputs (acquired services) have a direct, immediate and unequivocal relationship with taxable transactions — supplies of services — which are carried out downstream in the context of the complementary activity of supplying legally permitted, technical management services?

               (b)

               May a body that has the status of a holding company and is subject to VAT on the acquisition of goods and services that are thereupon wholly transmitted to companies in which it has a holding, with payment of the VAT, when that institution combines the main activity it carries out (management of shareholdings) with an accessory activity (supply of technical administration and management services), deduct all the tax incurred in respect of those acquisitions by applying the method of deduction based on actual use set out in Article 17(2) of the Sixth Directive?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-431/08: Order of the General Court of 12 April 2010 — Bulur Giyim Sanayi ve Ticaret Sirketi v OHIM — Denim (VIGOSS)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/51

         Order of the General Court of 12 April 2010 — Bulur Giyim Sanayi ve Ticaret Sirketi v OHIM — Denim (VIGOSS)
   (Case T-431/08) (1)

   2010/C 148/84

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.


title: Case T-189/10: Action brought on 20 April 2010 — GEA Group v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/44

         Action brought on 20 April 2010 — GEA Group v Commission
   (Case T-189/10)
   2010/C 179/77
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: GEA Group AG (Bochum, Germany) (represented by: A. Kallmayer, I. du Mont and G. Schiffers, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of the amending decision, to the extent that it imposes a fine on the applicant;

               —

               In the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 1 of the amending decision;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contests Commission Decision C(2010) 727 final of 8 February 2010, by which the Commission amended its Decision C(2009) 8682 final of 11 November 2009 in Case COMP/38589 — Heat Stabilisers, in relation inter alia to the applicant (‘the amending decision’). The amendment concerns Article 2 Nos 31 and 32 of Commission Decision C(2009) 8682 final concerning the applicant’s joint and several liability.
   In support of its claim, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   First, the applicant claims that its rights of defence have been infringed because it was not heard before the amending decision was adopted or allowed to participate in the procedure in any other way. By its second plea in law, the applicant complains that the reasoning of the amending decision is defective, as it is based only on the failure to comply with the maximum limit under Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1) which must be respected ex officio, and does not contain any specific justification with regard to the applicant. By its third plea in law, the applicant complains that there is no legal basis for the amending decision, which has already become final for some addressees or has been invoked before the courts. By its fourth plea in law, the applicant argues that the alteration of the fine to its detriment is not permitted. Finally, the applicant argues that time-bar applies, because the amending decision was adopted after the expiry of the limitation period laid down in Article 25(6) of Regulation No 1/2003.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-211/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Putters International v Commission (Competition — Cartels — International removal services market in Belgium — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing — Market-sharing — Bid rigging — Single and continuous infringement — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Gravity — Duration)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Putters International v Commission
   (Case T-211/08) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - International removal services market in Belgium - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Bid rigging - Single and continuous infringement - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity - Duration)
   2011/C 226/51
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Putters International NV (Cargovil, Belgium) (represented by: K. Platteau, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Commission decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), and, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Putters International NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


title: Case T-158/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA (Public service contracts — Community tender procedure — External service provision for software applications — Decision to classify the applicant’s tender in second place for the purposes of a cascading contract — Award criteria — Addition of award criterion not provided for by the contract documents — Assessment of a selection criterion at the award stage — Transparency)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/18

      Judgment of the General Court of 29 January 2014 — European Dynamics Belgium and Others v EMA
      (Case T-158/12) (1)

      (Public service contracts - Community tender procedure - External service provision for software applications - Decision to classify the applicant’s tender in second place for the purposes of a cascading contract - Award criteria - Addition of award criterion not provided for by the contract documents - Assessment of a selection criterion at the award stage - Transparency)
      (2014/C 71/30)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicants: European Dynamics Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium); European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbruck, Luxembourg); Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece); and European Dynamics UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński and C. Maignen, acting as Agents, assisted initially by H. G. Kamann and E. Arsenidou, and subsequently by H. G. Kamann et A. Dritsa, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application (i) for annulment of European Medicines Agency decision EMA/67882/2012 of 31 January 2012 to classify the applicants’ tender in second place for signing a framework-contract, following the call for tender EMA/2011/17/ICT on the external service provision for software applications, and (ii) for damages.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  European Dynamics Belgium SA, European Dynamics Luxembourg SA, Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai and European Dynamics UK Ltd shall pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 184, 23.6.2012.


title: Case C-100/10: Action brought on 23 February 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/29

         Action brought on 23 February 2010 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-100/10)
   2010/C 113/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun and J. Sénéchal, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on statutory audits of annual accounts and consolidated accounts, amending Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC and repealing Council Directive 84/253/EEC (1) or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 53 of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for the transposition of Directive 2006/43/EC lapsed on 28 June 2008. At the date the present action was commenced, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, had not informed the Commission of those measures.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 157, p. 87.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 27 May 2004 in Case T-379/02: Antonio Di Adolfo v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Time-limits — Claim for compensation — Originating application — Formal requirements — Injunction against an institution — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/23

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)
   of 27 May 2004
   in Case T-379/02: Antonio Di Adolfo v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Time-limits - Claim for compensation - Originating application - Formal requirements - Injunction against an institution - Manifestly inadmissible)
   (2004/C 239/50)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-379/02: Antonio Di Adolfo, residing at Rome (Italy), represented by S. Amato, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Montaguti assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer) with an address for service in Luxembourg — application for, on one hand, annulment of the Commission Decision of 30 October 2001 withdrawing financial assistance originally granted to the applicant in the context of the Joint Venture Programme for the incorporation of an Italo-Romanian joint venture company (JOP Facility 2 — Project in Romania with Phoenix European S.r.l. - J2BROSEVEN) and, on the other hand, damages in respect of the loss allegedly caused to the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 27 May 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The claim is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 22.2.2003.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 April 2003 in Case T-11/01: Catherine Mascetti v Commission of the European Communities (Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff — Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)

text:
C 135/28                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.6.2003
declare it compatible with the common market and the EEA                   (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the
Agreement, subject to compliance with the undertakings                     Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; Blanca Pastor, Deputy
proposed (Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB v Moulinex) — the                         Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 April 2003, in which it:
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lena-
erts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio,               1.    Annuls the decision of the Commission not to promote the
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                   applicant to Grade B 2 in the 2001 promotions procedure;
3 April 2003, in which it:
                                                                           2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs;
1.     Annuls Commission Decision D/228078 of 8 January 2002
       not to oppose the concentration between SEB and Moulinex            (1 ) OJ C 156 of 29.6.02.
       and to declare it compatible with the common market and the
       EEA Agreement, subject to compliance with the undertakings
       proposed (Case COMP/M.2621 — SEB v Moulinex) so far as
       concerns the markets in Italy, Spain, Finland, the United
       Kingdom and Ireland;
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.     Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                                of 1 April 2003
3.     Orders the applicant and the Commission to bear their own
       costs;                                                              in Case T-11/01: Catherine Mascetti v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
4.     Orders SEB SA and De Longhi SpA to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (Contract as a member of the temporary staff — Admissi-
                                                                           bility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance
( 1) OJ C 144 of 15.06.02.                                                 with time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Second
                                                                           renewal of a contract as a member of the temporary staff —
                                                                                Articles 2(d), 8 and 47 of the CEOS)
                                                                                (2003/C 135/45)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               In Case T-11/01: Catherine Mascetti, a former member of
                                                                           the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, residing in Leggiuno (Italy), represented by
                           of 9 April 2003                                 B. Nascimbene and M. Condinanzi, lawyers, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
in Case T-134/02: Miguel Tejada Fernández v Commission                     Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and A. Dal
                of the European Communities ( 1)                           Ferro) — application for annulment of the decision of
                                                                           28 September 2000 by which the authority empowered to
                                                                           conclude contracts of employment rejected the complaint
(Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative                      lodged by the applicant seeking a declaration that the employ-
                 merits — Action for annulment)                            ment relationship which bound her to the Commission was a
                                                                           relationship of indefinite period under a contract as a member
                                                                           of the temporary staff pursuant to Article 2(d) of the Con-
                           (2003/C 135/44)                                 ditions of Employment of other Servants, renewed on more
                                                                           than one occasion with the effects referred to in the last
                                                                           paragraph of Article 8 of those conditions — the Court of First
                    (Language of the case: French)                         Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas,
                                                                           President of the Chamber, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
                                                                           H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 1 April 2003, the
                                                                           operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-134/02: Miguel Tejada Fernández, an official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                    1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
Woluwé-Saint-Étienne (Belgium), represented by L. Vogel,
                                                                           2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: C. Berar-
dis-Kayser) — application for annulment of the decision of the             (1 ) OJ 2001 C 95.
Commission not to promote the applicant to Grade B 2 in the
2001 promotions procedure — the Court of First Instance


title: Case C-524/12 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2012 by TeamBank AG Nürnberg against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2012 in Case T-220/11 TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/33

         Appeal brought on 19 November 2012 by TeamBank AG Nürnberg against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 19 September 2012 in Case T-220/11 TeamBank AG Nürnberg v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-524/12 P)
   2013/C 9/56
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: TeamBank AG Nürnberg (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-220/11 in its entirety;

               —

               grant in full the applications made at first instance in its application of 18 April 2011 before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The General Court misapplied Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) in finding there to be a likelihood of confusion between ‘f@ir Credit’ and ‘FERCREDIT’.
   Contrary to the view taken by the General Court, there is a clear visual difference in the overall impressions of the two signs. Furthermore, account needs to be taken of the fact that the signs in dispute relate to financial services, which usually have significant financial consequences for their users. Thus, it is to be assumed that the average consumer will examine these signs particularly carefully and are highly likely to recognise the differences between them. However, the General Court did not adequately examine that circumstance.
   On a correct assessment of that circumstance and the differences in the overall impression of both signs there are no relevant similarities between the signs.

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Full Court) of 18 January 2005 in Case C-257/01: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (Regulations (EC) Nos 789/2001 and 790/2001 — Visa policy — Border checks and surveillance — Article 202 EC — Implementing powers reserved to the Council — Updating reserved to the Member States — Specific cases — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Full Court)
   of 18 January 2005
   in Case C-257/01: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Regulations (EC) Nos 789/2001 and 790/2001 - Visa policy - Border checks and surveillance - Article 202 EC - Implementing powers reserved to the Council - Updating reserved to the Member States - Specific cases - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2005/C 57/01)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-257/01: application for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 3 July 2001, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Maidani and C. O'Reilly) supported by Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: H.G. Sevenster) v Council of the European Union (Agents: E. Finnegan and I. Díez Parra) supported by: Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) – the Court (Full Court), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and K. Lenaerts, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 245 of 1.09.2001.


title: Case T-84/13: Action brought on 14 February 2013 — Samsung SDI and Others v Commission

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/32

         Action brought on 14 February 2013 — Samsung SDI and Others v Commission
   (Case T-84/13)
   2013/C 108/81
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Samsung SDI Co. Ltd (Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea); Samsung SDI Germany GmbH (Berlin, Germany); and Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Bhd (Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, Malaysia) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, D. Hull, Solicitor, and L.-A. Grelier, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Article 1(2) and 2(2) of Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 final of 5 December 2012 in case COMP/39.437 — TV and Computer Monitor Tubes (contested decision) insofar as it affects the applicants;

               —

               In the alternative: partially annul Article 1(2) of the decision insofar as it concerns the starting and end dates of the applicants’ participation in the colour picture tubes used in televisions (‘CPT’) infringement, and reduce the fine imposed on the applicants by Article 2(2) of the contested decision;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely, with respect to the CPT infringement, on three pleas in law. With respect to the colour display tubes used in computer monitors (CDT) infringement, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
   With respect to the CPT infringement, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in applying Article 101 TFEU to find that there was a single and continuous infringement covering all types of CPTs during the entire duration of the infringement and the entire arrangements that took place in Asia.

               2.

               Second plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that the Commission erred in determining both the starting date and the end date of the applicants’ participation in the CPT infringement, which led to extend the total duration of the cartel by at least sixteen months.

               3.

               Third plea in law, in the alternative, alleging that the Commission’s decision not to grant the applicants the maximum 50 % leniency reduction is based on incorrect facts and manifestly erroneous.

         With respect to the CDT infringement, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea, alleging that the Commission violated its Fining Guidelines (1) by including the sales of CDTs delivered to Samsung Electronics in Europe in the value of sales for the fine calculation, notwithstanding the fact that the competition for these sales entirely took place in Korea.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging that the Commission violated its Fining Guidelines by taking the average annual turnover over the entire period of the infringement for the calculation of the fine, thereby deviating from the rule of taking the last full business year of the infringement.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging that the Commission’s decision not to grant the applicants the maximum 50 % leniency reduction is based on incorrect facts and manifestly erroneous.

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ 2006 C 210, p. 2)


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 December 2000 in Case C-99/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 2815/98 — Marketing standards for olive oil)

text:
5.5.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 134/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       1.    Declares that, by imposing in Decree No 96-351 of 19 April
                                                                                1996 concerning the reagents mentioned in Article L.761-14-
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                          1 of the Code de la Santé Publique the obligation to state the
                                                                                registration number on the external packaging and to mention
                                                                                that registration on the notice accompanying each medical
                       of 14 December 2000
                                                                                reagent, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
in Case C-55/99: Commission of the European Communi-                               Article 28 EC);
                     ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                             2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free
movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect —                      3.    Orders the French Republic and the Commission of the
Medical reagents — Compulsory registration procedure                               European Communities to bear their own costs.
applicable to all reagents — Obligation to state the regis-
tration number on the external packaging and the notice                      (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                   accompanying each reagent)
                           (2001/C 134/01)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 14 December 2000
In Case C-55/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: R.B. Wainwright and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French                    in Case C-99/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the
Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Loosli-Surrans) —                                   European Communities (1)
application for a declaration that, by introducing in Decree
No 96-351 of 19 April 1996 concerning the reagents men-                      (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 2815/98 —
tioned in Article L.761-14-1 of the Code de la Santé Publique                                Marketing standards for olive oil)
(Code of Public Health) (JORF, 26 April 1996, p. 6386) a
registration procedure for all medical reagents, and by                                                 (2001/C 134/02)
imposing in that decree the obligation to state the registration
number on the external packaging and the notice
accompanying each reagent, the French Republic has failed to                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Article 28 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: V. Skouris, President of the Second Chamber,                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
acting as President of the Sixth Chamber (Rapporteur),                                           in the European Court Reports)
J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given             In Case C-99/99: Italian Republic (Agents: U. Leanza, G. Castel-
a judgment on 14 December 2000, in which it:                                 lani Pastoris, and O. Fiumara) v Commission of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 134/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            5.5.2001
Communities (Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) — application for               1.   The letting of spaces for the parking of vehicles is an activity
the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2815/98                          which, where it is carried on by a body governed by public law,
of 22 December 1998 concerning marketing standards for                          is carried on by that body as a public authority within the
olive oil (OJ 1998 L 349 p. 56) or, in the alternative, of                      meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth
Articles 1, 2(1) and the third subparagraph of 2(2), the third                  Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 oil the
subparagraph of Article 3(2), and Article 3(3) of that regulation               harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                        turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann                   basis of assessment, if it is carried on under a special legal
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;                 regime applicable to bodies governed by public law. That is the
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on                      case where the pursuit of the activity involves the use of public
14 December 2000, in which it:                                                  powers.
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                           2.   The third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Directive
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                             77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that bodies governed
                                                                                by public law are not necessarily regarded as taxable persons in
                                                                                respect of the activities they engage in which are not negligible.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                       Only if those bodies engage in an activity or perform a
                                                                                transaction listed in Annex D to that directive may the criterion
                                                                                of the negligible scale of that activity or transaction be taken
                                                                                into account with the aim, if national law makes use of the
                                                                                option provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of
                                                                                Sixth Directive 77/388, of excluding them from being taxable
                                                                                persons for value added tax purposes where their activities are
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          negligible.
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                  3.   The Finance Minister of a Member State may be authorised by
                                                                                a national law to define what is covered by, first, the concept of
                      of 14 December 2000                                       significant distortions of competition within the meaning of the
                                                                                second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Directive 77/388
in Case C-446/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                       and, second, the concept of negligible activities within the
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Portugal): Fazenda                         meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 4(5) of that
           Pública v Câmara Municipal do Porto (1)                             directive, provided that his decisions of application may be
                                                                                reviewed by the national courts.
(Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable persons —
Bodies governed by public law — Letting of spaces for the                  4.   The fourth subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Directive
                        parking of vehicles)                                    77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that the absence of an
                                                                                exemption for the letting of spaces for the parking of vehicles,
                          (2001/C 134/03)                                       which follows from Article 13(b) of that directive, does not
                                                                                prevent bodies governed by public law which carry out that
                                                                                activity from being treated as non-taxable persons for value
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)                             added tax in respect of it, where the conditions stated in the first
                                                                                and second subparagraphs are satisfied.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          5.   A national court is entitled, and in certain cases obliged, to
                                                                                refer to the Court, even of its own motion, a question concerning
In Case C-446/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                   the interpretation of Directive 77/388, if it considers that a
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supremo Tribunal                    decision on the point by the Court is necessary for it to give
Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal) for                     judgment, and once it has made that reference it is bound by
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                     the Court’s decision when it gives final judgment in the main
court between Fazenda Pública and Câmara Municipal do                          proceedings.
Porto, third party: Ministério Público — on the interpretation
of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)               (1) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999.
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and
P. Jann, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
14 December 2000, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-304/03: Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Bayer AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
1.11.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 264/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Community trade mark          The word mark ‘map&guide’ —               Applicant for Com-            The applicant in this casey
sought:                       application No 2089829                    munity trade mark:
Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 9,          Community trade mark          The word mark ‘NEXAVAR’ for
                              41 and 42 (computer software,             sought:                       goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical
                              conducting training events for                                          and veterinary preparations, diag-
                              computer software and computer                                          nostic preparations for medicinal
                              programming)                                                            purposes)      —       Application
                                                                                No 1534213
Decision         contested    Refusal by the examiner to register
before the Board of           the mark in respect of ‘computer          Proprietor of mark or         Sanofi-Synthelabo           (Société
Appeal:                       software’ and ‘computer program-          sign cited in the oppo-       Anonyme)
                              ming’                                     sition proceedings:
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal                   Mark or sign cited in         The national word mark ‘BESA-
Appeal:                                                                 opposition:                   VAR’ for goods in Class 5 (pharm-
                                                                                aceutical preparations)
Pleas in law:                 Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Regulation (EC) No 40/94                  Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                        sition Division:
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                        Appeal:                       Opposition Division and refusal
                                                                                of the application
                                                                        Pleas in law:                 There is no similarity between
                                                                                the marks which could lead to
Action brought on 8 September 2003 by Bayer AG                                                        confusion
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
         Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                         (Case T-304/03)
                         (2003/C 264/65)
                                                                        Action brought on 4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeut-
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)       sche Handelsgesellschaft mbH against the Office for
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was       Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and
                        submitted: German)                                                      Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case T-307/03)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                       (2003/C 264/66)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
8 September 2003 by Bayer AG, Leverkusen (Germany),                     (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
represented by M. Wolpert, lawyer. Sanofi-Synthelabo (Société           of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
Anonyme), Paris, was also a party to the proceedings before                                     submitted: German)
the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
—     amend the decision of 4 June 2003 of the Fourth Board             the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal         4 September 2003 by WHG Westdeutsche Handelsgesellschaft
      Market (Case R 452/2002-4) and reject the opposition;             mbH, represented by U. Schuster, lawyer. Kaufring AG,
                                                                        Düsseldorf (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.          before the Board of Appeal.


title: Case C-71/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Qorti Kostituzzjonali (Malta) lodged on 10 February 2012 — Vodafone Malta Limited and Mobisle Communications Limited vs L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, and L-Awtorità ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Qorti Kostituzzjonali (Malta) lodged on 10 February 2012 — Vodafone Malta Limited and Mobisle Communications Limited vs L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, and L-Awtorità ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni
   (Case C-71/12)
   2012/C 118/25
   Language of the case: Maltese

      Referring court

   Qorti Kostituzzjonali

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Vodafone Malta Limited, Mobisle Communications Limited

      Defendants: L-Avukat Ġenerali, Il-Kontrollur tad-Dwana, Il-Ministru tal-Finanzi, L-Awtorità ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni

      Questions referred

   Do the provisions of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive), and in particular its Articles 12 and/or 13, prohibit the Member States from imposing a fiscal burden on mobile telecommunications operators (‘the operators’) that is:

               (a)

               a duty, called an excise duty, introduced through national legislation;

               (b)

               calculated as a percentage on the charges levied by mobile telephony operators on their users for the services provided to them by these operators, with the exception of those services exempted by law;

               (c)

               paid to the mobile telephony operators by their users on an individual basis, and this amount is subsequently passed on to the Comptroller of Customs by all operators offering mobile telephony services, which amount is payable only by the operators and not by other undertakings, including those providing other electronic communications networks and services?


title: Case C-484/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu — Croatia) — Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 — European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims — Requirements for certification as a European Enforcement Order — Concept of ‘court’ — Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’ — Authentic instrument)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu — Croatia) — Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer
   (Case C-484/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Requirements for certification as a European Enforcement Order - Concept of ‘court’ - Notary who has issued a writ of execution based on an ‘authentic document’ - Authentic instrument))
   (2017/C 144/10)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Općinski sud u Novom Zagrebu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ibrica Zulfikarpašić

      Defendant: Slaven Gajer

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation.

               2.

               Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a writ of execution adopted by a notary, in Croatia, based on an ‘authentic document’, and which has not been contested may not be certified as a European Enforcement Order since it does not relate to an uncontested claim within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.


title: Case T-377/06: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Comap v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Duration of participation in the infringement — Fines — Determination of the starting amount of the fine — Proportionality)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — Comap v Commission
   (Case T-377/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Duration of participation in the infringement - Fines - Determination of the starting amount of the fine - Proportionality)
   2011/C 145/28
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Comap SA (Paris, France) (represented initially by A. Wachsmann and C. Pommiès, subsequently by A. Wachsmann and D. Nourissier, and finally by A. Wachsmann and S. de Guigné, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Comap SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case C-250/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 29 May 2015 — Vivium SA v Belgische Staat

text:
               10.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 29 May 2015 — Vivium SA v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-250/15)
   (2015/C 262/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vivium SA

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Does EU law, and in particular the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, preclude the application of legislation of a Member State on the basis of which the administrative or judicial remedies which are available against acts and regulations of administrative authorities based on a national-law provision are not made available in the case where a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, delivered pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 234 EC), rules that a national-law provision is incompatible with EU law, whereas every interested party can bring an action for annulment of a national-law provision before the national Constitutional Court in the case where a judgment of the Constitutional Court, concerning a preliminary issue referred by a national court, has determined that that national-law provision is unconstitutional, and the annulling judgment of the Constitutional Court delivered in that action makes available the administrative or judicial remedies that are available to challenge acts and regulations of administrative authorities based on that national-law provision which has been annulled?


title: Case C-293/00: Action brought on 31 July 2000 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 335/24                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.11.2000
      ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           of 25 July 2000                                 1.    Annul Commission Decision 2000/362/EC (1) of 25 May
                                                                                2000 on the total amount of Community aid for the
in Case C-377/98 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands v                                 eradication of classical swine fever in the Netherlands in
European Parliament and Council of the European                                  1997, in so far as the Community financial contribution
                               Union (1)                                         fixed for the eradication of classical swine fever in the
                                                                                Netherlands in 1997 represents a reduction of 25 % in
                                                                                the compensation paid to livestock farmers.
(Application for interim measures — Suspension of oper-
ation of a measure — Urgency — Directive 98/44/EC —
        Legal protection of biotechnological inventions)                   2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2000/C 335/44)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)                          —     Incorrect factual basis:
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published           The absence of an approved contingency plan for classical
                   in the European Court Reports)                                swine fever is primarily a formal omission. There are no
                                                                                relevant differences between the ‘Swine Fever Scenario’
                                                                                applicable at the time of the swine fever crisis and the
In Case C-377/98 R: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:
                                                                                contingency plan subsequently approved by Commission
M.A. Fierstra), supported by Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza,
                                                                                Decision 1999/246/EC of 30 March 1999.
assisted by D. Del Gaizo) v European Parliament (Agents:
J. Schoo and E. Vandenbosch) and Council of the European
Union (Agents: R. Gosalbo Bono, G. Houttuin and A. Lo Mona-                      The Netherlands Government is of the opinion that
co), supported by Commission of the European Communities                         the Commission’s view that classical swine fever was
(Agents: T. van Rijn and K. Banks) — application for suspen-                     discovered too late in the Netherlands is factually incor-
sion of operation of Directive 98/44/EC of the European                          rect.
Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal
protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ 1998 L 213,                        The Commission fails to make clear what it understands
p. 13) — the President of the Court has made an order on                         by ‘too many’ animal movements with insufficient
25 July 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                         guarantee of hygiene in context of the buying-up of pigs
                                                                                and how it comes to that conclusion. The application of
1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.                         the buying-up rules in Article 1 of Regulation
                                                                                No 413/97/EC inevitably resulted in transport move-
2.    The costs are reserved.                                                    ments within the isolated zone. Yet those movements
                                                                                arose directly from compliance with Regulation 413/97.
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                                Even the transport movements resulting from the buying-
                                                                                up arrangement which, apart from Regulation
                                                                                No 413/97/EC, was also provided for by the Netherlands
                                                                                authorities, were necessary and not ‘too many’ in number.
                                                                                The Commission is right when it claims that the areas
                                                                                delimited and preventively evacuated around each source
                                                                                of infection were not uniform in size. The conclusion
Action brought on 31 July 2000 by the Kingdom of the                             which it draws from that fact, namely, that it was the
Netherlands against the Commission of the European                               result of inconsistent management, is not correct. The
                            Communities                                          radius of the sanitary slaughter zone was determined on
                                                                                the basis of the specific circumstances of each case. It is
                          (Case C-293/00)                                        not laid down in any Community directive that a radius
                                                                                of 1 000 metres should be applied in the event of
                                                                                preventive sanitary slaughter, and at the time of the
                          (2000/C 335/45)                                        sanitary slaughter operations there was no reason to
                                                                                regard a radius of 500 metres as insufficient. Likewise,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        the Commission’s claim that the authorities waited too
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     long before carrying out preventive sanitary slaughter is
Communities on 31 July 2000 by the Kingdom of the                                incorrect. In so far as they may have waited longer than
Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra, Head of the Euro-                     was desirable, that was directly connected with the
pean Law Department, and Jantine van Bakel, of the European                      destruction capacity. In any event, from June 1997
Law Department, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague,                   onwards, sanitary slaughter always took place in or
acting as Agents.                                                                within seven days.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 335/25
    The Netherlands Government disputes the validity of the           —     Breach of principle of legal certainty
    objections of a financial and administrative nature raised
    by the Commission and points out that the Commission                    In the absence of a relevant Community definition, the
    bases its arguments on out-of-date (and superseded)                     meaning of the term ‘adequate compensation’ as referred
    reporting and data.                                                     to in the seventh indent of Article 3(2) of Decision
                                                                            90/424/EEC is left to the discretion of the Member
                                                                            States. They must determine, in the light of the relevant
—   Misapplication of the law:                                              legislation (in this case Directive 80/217/EEC and
                                                                            Decision 90/424/EEC), what is adequate compensation.
                                                                            The Commission now assigns a meaning all of its own to
    Council Decision 90/424/EEC on expenditure in the
                                                                            the term ‘adequate compensation’, which cannot be
    veterinary field (2) makes no provision for the application
                                                                            inferred from existing Community legislation. The Com-
    of a general reduction. When classic swine fever occurs
                                                                            mission has thus acted in breach of the principle of legal
    in a Member State, that Member State is eligible under
                                                                            certainty which requires that legal rules be clear and their
    Article 3(2) of Decision 90/424 for a financial contri-
                                                                            application foreseeable for those affected by them.
    bution from the Community for the eradication of the
    disease. The right to a contribution of 50 % arises in
    respect of measures referred to in Article 3(5) of Decision       —     Breach of the requirement to state reasons.
    90/424/EEC. The conditions referred to in Article 3(2) of
    Decision 90/424/EEC were complied with in controlling
    the swine fever epidemic. In so far as the Commission             (1) OJ 2000 L 129, p. 33.
    is of the opinion that technical and administrative               (2) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 19.
    shortcomings were discovered subsequently in the
    Netherlands, the Netherlands takes the view that, since
    they were inevitable, such shortcomings should not lead
    to a reduction. Perhaps the reduction was intended to
    have a remedial effect and was used by the Commission
    as an instrument for putting the level of compensation
    paid in the Netherlands on a par with that paid in other
    countries. If that is the case, the Commission has failed to
    take account of the need to recognize the specific
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nederlandse
    circumstances in each Member State, such as the structure
                                                                      Raad van State by order of 8 August 2000 in the case of
    of pig farming, the density of the pig population in the
                                                                      Oliehandel Koeweit B.V. and Minister van Volkshuisvest-
    affected area, as well as of economic and cyclical vari-
                                                                               ing, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer
    ations in price levels between and with respect to other
    EU Member States during previous outbreaks of classical
    swine fever, and has overlooked the fact that the situation                                (Case C-307/00)
    in the other Member States was completely different from
    that in the Netherlands as regards the extent and duration
    of the crisis.                                                                             (2000/C 335/46)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    In so far as the Commission intended to impose a penalty
                                                                      European Communities by order of 8 August 2000 by the
    on the Netherlands, that is wrong because there is in any
                                                                      Nederlandse Raad van State (Council of State), Netherlands,
    case no legal basis for it.
                                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 16 August 2000,
                                                                      for a preliminary ruling in the case of Oliehandel Koeweit B.V.
—   Breach of the principle of proportionality                        and Minister van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en
                                                                      Milieubeheer on the following questions:
    The Netherlands Government is of the opinion that there           1.    Do Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on the
    is a major imbalance between, on the one hand, the                      disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinat-
    deficiencies found (or described as such) by the Com-                   ed terphenyls (PCB/PCT) and Directive 87/101/EEC (2) of
    mission in the implementation of the measures taken to                  22 December 1986 amending Directive 75/439/EEC on
    control classical swine fever and, on the other hand, the               the disposal of waste oils mean that Regulation (EEC)
    financial correction applied by the Commission. The                     No 259/93 (3) of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and
    Commission wrongly uses the data collected by it on the                 control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
    basis of a small and, in the opinion of the Netherlands                 European       Community       (hereinafter:    ‘Regulation
    Government, unrepresentative spot check as the basis for                No 259/93’) must be interpreted as meaning that the
    conclusions about the handling of the whole operation                   shipment of waste oil with a PCB content of over 50 ppm
    to control classical swine fever in 1997. The Netherlands               must always be regarded as a shipment of waste for
    Government is further of the opinion that comparison                    disposal within the meaning of Title II, Chapter A, of
    with the guidelines operated for the imposition of                      Regulation No 259/93, read in conjunction with Art-
    reductions in the EAGGF context supports the view of the                icle 1(e) of Directive 75/442/EEC (4) of 15 July 1975 on
    Netherlands that the 25 % reduction is disproportionate.                waste (hereinafter: ‘the Framework Directive’)?


title: Case C-115/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2004/27/EC — Proprietary medicinal products — Medicinal products for human use — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-115/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2004/27/EC - Proprietary medicinal products - Medicinal products for human use - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 283/07)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: T. Boček, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

               2.

               The Czech Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-332/12: Order of the President of the Court of 4 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 4 January 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-332/12) (1)

   2013/C 108/50
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case F-1/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 14 December 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Social security — Sickness insurance — Applications for reimbursement of medical expenses — No act adversely affecting an official — Inadmissibility — No proper statement of reasons)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/62

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 14 December 2010 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-1/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Social security - Sickness insurance - Applications for reimbursement of medical expenses - No act adversely affecting an official - Inadmissibility - No proper statement of reasons)
   2011/C 30/121
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision refusing 100 % reimbursement of the applicant’s medical expenses.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the implied decisions by which the European Commission rejected Mr Marcuccio’s claims of 25 December 2008 seeking reimbursement at the normal rate of certain medical expenses.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the heads of claim.

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010, p. 52.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 December 1999 in Case C-150/98 P: Economic and Social Committee v E (Appeal — Officials — Freedom of expression in relation to hierarchical superiors — Duty of loyalty and obligation to uphold the dignity of the service — Disciplinary measure — Relegation in step)

text:
C 63/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.3.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     2. In the case of products derived from milk in which a natural
                                                                               constituent of milk has been replaced by a foreign substance, a
                                                                               designation such as ‘Dietary cheese (Dietary soft cheese) contain-
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                       ing vegetable oil for a fat-modified diet’ may not be used even
                                                                               when that designation is accompanied by additional descriptions
                                                                               on the products’ packaging, such as ‘This dietary cheese is rich in
                      of 16 December 1999                                      polyunsaturated fats’ or ‘This dietary cheese is ideal for a
                                                                               cholesterol-conscious lifestyle’.
in Case C-101/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
the Bundesgerichtshof): Union Deutsche Lebensmit-
telwerke GmbH v Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der
                         Wirtschaft eV (1)
(Protection of designations used in marketing of milk and
milk products — Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 — Directive
89/398/EEC — Use of the designation cheese to describe a                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
dietary product in which the natural fat has been replaced by
                            vegetable fat)                                                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1999
                           (2000/C 63/06)
                                                                           in Case C-150/98 P: Economic and Social Committee
                                                                                v E ( 1)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           (Appeal — Officials — Freedom of expression in relation to
                                                                           hierarchical superiors — Duty of loyalty and obligation to
                                                                           uphold the dignity of the service — Disciplinary measure —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             Relegation in step)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2000/C 63/07)
In Case C-101/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesgerichts-                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
hof, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Union Deutsche Lebensmit-
telwerke GmbH and Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Wirtschaft eV — on the interpretation of Article 3(1) of                                      in the European Court Reports)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 of 2 July 1987 on the
protection of designations used in marketing of milk and milk              In Case C-150/98 P: Economic and Social Committee (Agent:
products (OJ 1987 L 182, p. 36) and of Article 3(2) of Council             M. Bermejo Garde) — appeal against the judgment of the
Directive 89/398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the approximation                    Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 17 February 1998
of the laws of the Member States relating to foodstuffs intended           in Case T-183/96 Economic and Social Committee v E [1998]
for particular nutritional uses (OJ 1989 L 186, p. 27) — the               ECR I-A-67 and II-159, seeking to have that judgment set
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rappor-                  aside, the other party to the proceedings being E, former
teur), President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of             official of the Economic and Social Committee, residing in
the Sixth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch, Judges;                   Brussels, Belgium — the Court (Second Chamber), composed
A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                 of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December             G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
1999, in which it has ruled:                                               General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           16 December 1999, in which it:
1. Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1898/87 of 2 July           1. Dismisses the appeal;
    1987 on the protection of designations used in marketing of
    milk and milk products, read in conjunction with Article 3(2) of       2. Orders the Economic and Social Committee to pay the costs.
    Council Directive 89/398/EEC of 3 May 1989 on the
    approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
    foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional uses, is to be          (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
    interpreted as meaning that a milk product in which the milk fat
    has been replaced by vegetable fat for dietetic reasons may not be
    designated as ‘cheese’.


title: Case T-116/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2009 — Wieland-Werke v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for copper industrial tubes — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Principle that penalties must have a sound legal basis — Size of the market concerned — Deterrent effect — Duration of the infringement — Cooperation)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/32

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 May 2009 — Wieland-Werke v Commission
   (Case T-116/04) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for copper industrial tubes - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Principle that penalties must have a sound legal basis - Size of the market concerned - Deterrent effect - Duration of the infringement - Cooperation)
   2009/C 153/60
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Wieland-Werke AG (Ulm, Germany) (represented by: R. Bechtold and U. Soltész, Lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by: É. Gippini Fournier and H. Gading, and subsequently É. Gippini Fournier, O. Weber and K. Mojzesowicz, Lawyers)

      Re:

   Annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant under Article 2(a) of Commission Decision C(2003) 4820 final of 16 December 2003 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.240 — Industrial tubes).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Wieland-Werke AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-24/09: Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Biocaps v Commission

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/50

         Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Biocaps v Commission
   (Case T-24/09)
   (2009/C 55/89)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Biocaps (Orsay, France) (represented by: Y.-R. Guillou, H. Speyart and T. Verstraeten, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the constested decision; and

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a legal entity responsible for running the Laboratoire Champagnat Desmoulins Philippakis, seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 6524 of 29 October 2008 in which the Commission, pursuant to Article 20(4) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1), ordered that laboratory, and all of the entities controlled directly or indirectly by it, to submit to an inspection concerning their possible participation in and/or implementation of agreements or concerted practices contrary to the provisions of Articles 81 EC and/or 82 EC.
   That conduct took the form in particular of decisions aimed at preventing pharmacists and/or legal persons from gaining access to the market in bio-medical analysis services, to restrict their activities on that market, or to exclude them from that market.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward a single plea in law alleging breach of the principle that the decisions of the Community institutions must be addressed to entities having legal personality, as the addressee of the contested decision no longer existed on the date when the decision was adopted.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case F-129/05: Action brought on  23 December 2005  — Merglova v Commission

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/56

         Action brought on 23 December 2005 — Merglova v Commission
   (Case F-129/05)
   (2006/C 60/104)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Eva Merglova (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

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

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 15 September 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               Pronounce the reclassification of the applicant in Grade C3 or C2, with retrospective effect from 1 May 2004;

               —

               In the alternative, order the Commission to recognise the applicant as eligible for promotion to Grade C3 or C2 in the next promotions year and order the Commission to make compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant through not having been classed in Grade C2 or C3 as from 1 May 2004;

               —

               In any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official recruited after the reform of the Staff Regulations but entered on the reserve list of a competition published before that reform, pleads unlawfulness of Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, pursuant to which she was classed in Grade C1, Step 2.
   In support of her objection of illegality, the applicant claims infringement of the principle of equivalence between the old and the new career structure, laid down by Article 6 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant argues that her career has been slowed by her being classed in Grade C1.
   The applicant also considers that she has been the victim of an infringement of the principle of equal treatment in relation to her colleagues in Grade C4 or C5 who were promoted before 1 May 2004.
   Finally, the applicant argues infringement of the legitimate expectation she was given that the new career structure would not involve deterioration of her working conditions, infringement of her acquired rights, and misuse of powers.


title: Case C-598/12: Action brought on 20 December 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/8

         Action brought on 20 December 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-598/12)
   2013/C 79/14
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, O. Beynet and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 2(1), (22), (32) and (33), Article 3(7), (8) and (13), Article 6(1) and (3), Article 9 as well as Articles 13 to 14 and Articles 17 to 23, Articles 10 and 11, Article 16(1) and (2), Article 26(2)(b), (c) and (d), third and fourth sentences, Article 29, Article 38(1) to (4), Article 39(1) to (4) and Article 40(1) to (3) and (5) to (7) of, and points 1 and 2 of Annex I to, Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, (1) and in any event by not notifying the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49(1) of that directive;

               —

               impose upon the Republic of Poland, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, a penalty payment for failure to fulfil its obligation to notify measures transposing Directive 2009/72/EC at the daily rate of EUR 84 378,24 from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposing Directive 2009/72/EC expired on 3 March 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 January 2002 in Case C-49/01 P: Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Harm caused by armed intervention in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 109/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.5.2002
7.    Article 10 of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive              2.    Orders Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd, Valentine Oceanic Trading
      85/303, gives rise to rights on which individuals may rely                 Inc., Caroline Shipping Inc., Simpson Navigation Ltd, Solar
      before national courts.                                                    Navigation Corporation, Ocean Quest Sea Carriers Ltd, Athena
                                                                                2004 SA, Freewind Shipping Co. and Elliniki Etaireia
                                                                                Diipeirotikon Grammon AE to pay the costs.
(1) OJ 2000 C 122.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 108 of 7.4.2002.
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 15 January 2002
                                                                                of 31 January 2002
in Case C-49/01 P: Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd and Others
v Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                in Case C-161/01 P: Franco Campoli v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
(Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community —
Harm caused by armed intervention in the Federal Republic                  (Appeal — Application for annulment of a decision transfer-
       of Yugoslavia — Appeal manifestly unfounded)                        ring an official and appointing a different official to the
                                                                           vacant post — Disguised disciplinary measure — Rights of
                                                                                defence — Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
                          (2002/C 109/25)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/26)
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(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-49/01 P: Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd, established in
Monrovia (Liberia), Valentine Oceanic Trading Inc., established
in Monrovia, Caroline Shipping Inc., established in Monrovia,              In Case C-161/01 P: Franco Campoli, residing in Brussels
Simpson Navigation Ltd, established in Monrovia, Solar Navi-               (Belgium), represented by S. Diana, avocat, — appeal against
gation Corporation, established in Monrovia, Ocean Quest Sea               the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Carriers Ltd, established in Monrovia, Athena 2004 SA,                     Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 6 March 2001 in Case
established in Monrovia, Freewind Shipping Co., established in             T-100/00 Campoli v Commission [2001] ECR FP I-A-71 and
Monrovia, and Elliniki Etaireia Diipeirotikon Grammon AE,                  II-347, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
established in Pireus (Greece), represented by N. Skandamis                party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
and A. Potamianos, dikigoroi — appeal against the order of                 Communities (Agents: J. Currall and D. Waelbroeck) — the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                    Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the
(Second Chamber) of 12 December 2000 in Case T-201/99                      Chamber, S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La
Royal Olympic Cruises and Others v Council and Commission                  Pergola and C.W.A: Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,
[2000] ECR II-4005, seeking to have that order set aside, the              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
other parties to the proceedings being Council of the European             31 January 2002, in which it:
Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and S. Kyriakopolou) and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. Chris-                  1.    Dismisses the appeal;
toforou and A. van Solinge) — the Court (First Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,               2.    Orders Mr. Campoli to pay the costs.
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 15 January
2002, in which it:                                                         (1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
1.    Dismisses the appeal;


title: Case T-410/08: Action brought on 30 September 2008 — GEMA v Commission

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/39

         Action brought on 30 September 2008 — GEMA v Commission
   (Case T-410/08)
   (2008/C 313/70)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Gesellschaft fur musikalische Auffführungs- und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte (GEMA) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Bechtold and I. Brinker, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare Article 3, Article 4(2) and, in so far as it refers to Article 3, Article 4(3) of the decision of the Commission of 16 July 2008 void under Article 231(1) EC, in so far as the applicant is concerned by it;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs under Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The application concerns the decision of the Commission of 16 July 2008 in Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC, in which the Commission declared that concerted practices in connection with the mutual exchange of musical copyright between societies of authors and composers belonging to the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) were incompatible with Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement. The applicant challenges the complaint concerning a concerted practice in Article 3 and the obligations arising from Article 4(2) and (3) of the decision in that regard to bring the infringement to an end.
   It relies on four pleas in law in that regard.
   First, the applicant submits that the decision of the Commission does not satisfy the requirements of Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (1). The decision infringes the principle of legality because it does not make it clear which practices are prohibited, is contradictory in itself and is, in addition, contrary to other administrative practice of the Commission. The applicant also complains of an infringement of the principle of proportionality and misuse of powers, as the Commission was guided by irrelevant considerations beyond criteria relevant to competition law and thereby exceeded its powers.
   Secondly, the applicant pleads that the Commission committed a substantial procedural error since it gave inadequate reasons for its decision contrary to its obligation under Article 253 EC.
   Thirdly, the decision is based on a manifest error of law and assessment, since the Commission concluded that there was a concerted practice from the structure of the market alone and therefore unlawfully reversed the distribution of the burden of proof laid down by law to the detriment of the applicant.
   Fourthly, the Commission assumed incorrectly in law that there was an infringement of Article 81 EC, since it failed to understand that the grant of rights restricted to the national territory in the reciprocal contracts concluded between the members of CISAC in accordance with the CISAC standard contract is an essential and necessary element of the international collective protection of rights and an expression of the generally recognised principle of territoriality in copyright law and therefore is not a restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81 EC.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1 of 4.1.2003, p. 1).


title: Case C-32/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága (Hungary) lodged on 21 January 2011 — Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt., Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt., Gépjármű Márkakereskedők Országos Szövetsége, Magyar Peugeot Márkakereskedők Biztosítási Alkusz Kft. And Paragon-Alkusz Zrt., legal successor of Magyar Opelkereskedők Bróker Kft. v Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága (Hungary) lodged on 21 January 2011 — Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt., Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt., Gépjármű Márkakereskedők Országos Szövetsége, Magyar Peugeot Márkakereskedők Biztosítási Alkusz Kft. And Paragon-Alkusz Zrt., legal successor of Magyar Opelkereskedők Bróker Kft. v Gazdasági Versenyhivatal
   (Case C-32/11)
   2011/C 145/04
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Allianz Hungária Biztosító Zrt., Generali-Providencia Biztosító Zrt., Gépjármű Márkakereskedők Országos Szövetsége, Magyar Peugeot Márkakereskedők Biztosítási Alkusz Kft., Paragon-Alkusz Zrt., legal successor of Magyar Opelkereskedők Bróker Kft.

      Defendant: Gazdasági Versenyhivatal

      Question referred

   Do bilateral agreements between an insurance company and individual car repairers, or between an insurance company and a car repairers’ association, under which the hourly repair charge paid by the insurance company to the repairer for the repair of vehicles insured by the insurance company depends, among other things, on the number and scale of insurance policies taken out with the insurance company by the repairer, as the insurance broker for the insurance company in question, qualify as agreements which have as their object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition, and thus contravene Article 101(1) TFEU?