title: Case T-156/02: Action brought on 15 May 2002 by Sunrider Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 169/42              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.7.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul the Commission’s decision dated 22 January 2001;
Applicant for the Com-       The applicant
munity trade mark:
                                                                         —     order the Commission to compensate the applicants for
                                                                               their loss of earnings and other benefits caused by the
The Community trade          Verbal mark ‘BIO-CANISAN’ —
                                                                               breaches of Community law;
mark concerned:              Application No 353 896, relating
                             to goods in classes 5 and 31
                             (veterinary preparations and food-          —     order the Commission to pay the applicants’ costs.
                             stuffs for animals)
Proprietor of the right to   VETO-Centre                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition                                                 The applicants all worked in the JET Project as employees or
proceedings:                                                             contractors to UK registered companies. According to the
                                                                         applicants, however, they should have been recruited by the
Trade mark or sign           French trade marks No 1582968               Commission as temporary agents since they were part of the
asserted by way of oppo-     ‘biocanina ’(word and device),              JET Project Team.
sition in the opposition     relating to goods in classes 5 and
proceedings:                 31, and No 1350892 ‘BIOCANI-
                             NA’), relating to goods in class 5          The applicants claim that the failure of the Commission to
                                                                         recruit the applicants as temporary agents was contrary the
Decision of the Oppo-        Refusal of the application                  JET statutes and constitutes an act ultra vires. According to the
sition Division:                                                         applicants, the JET statutes did not provide for the possibility
                                                                         of engaging staff who were working in the JET Project Team
Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the appeal                     through external contractors.
Appeal:
Grounds of claim:            Infringement of Article 43(2),              Furthermore, the applicants claim that the Commission dis-
                             third sentence, and Article 8(1)(b)         criminated against them since this resulted in the applicants
                             of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.                being treated in a less favourable manner then those employed
                                                                         by the Commission who were fulfilling substantially similar
                                                                         roles in the JET Project.
Action brought on 7 May 2002 by Richard J. Eagle, John
G. Fanthome, Martin Gardener, Robert C. Walton, David                    Action brought on 15 May 2002 by Sunrider Corporation
Sands, Alexander Gaberscik, Beryl Marrs, Clifford Marren,                against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Robert Felton, Carol Brickley, TF Atkins, Michael George                               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Grant and Edward Junger against the Commission of the
                   European Communities                                                           (Case T-156/02)
                        (Case T-144/02)                                                           (2002/C 169/75)
                        (2002/C 169/74)                                  (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                         of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
European Communities on 7 May 2002 by Richard J. Eagle,                  15 May 2002 by Sunrider Corporation, Torrance (USA),
John G. Fanthome, Martin Gardener, Robert C. Walton, David               represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer.
Sands, Alexander Gaberscik, Beryl Marrs, Clifford Marren,
Robert Felton, Carol Brickley, TF Atkins, Michael George Grant
and Edward Junger, represented by Mr Daniel Beard of                     Frieslands Brands B.V., Leeuwarden (the Netherlands) was an
Monckton Chambers, London (United Kingdom).                              additional party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 169/43
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Removal from the register of Case T-203/00 (1)
—     partially annul Decision R 34/2000-1 of the First Board                                   (2002/C 169/76)
      of Appeal of 21 February 2002 to the extent that the
      applicant was ordered to bear half of the opposition fees                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
      as well as its owns costs in the opposition and appeal
      proceedings;
—     order the Office to pay the costs.                                By order of 25 February 2002 the President of the Third
                                                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                        T-203/00: Beemsterboer Coldstore Services B.V. v Commission
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         of the European Communities.
The applicant filed an application for registration of the word         (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
mark ‘METABALANCE 44’ in respect of goods in Classes 5
and 29 at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(application no 155747). Frieslands Brands B.V. opposed that
application. The opposition was based on various national and
international marks including, inter alia, ‘BALANCE’, ‘BALANS’
and ‘FRIESISCHE FLAGGE BALANCE’ in respect of, inter alia,                     Removal from the register of Case T-309/00 (1)
goods in Classes 5 and 29.
                                                                                (2002/C 169/77)
As a result of a private settlement with the opponent, the
applicant limited the category of goods by removing some of                                (Language of the case: French)
the goods claimed in Class 29. The opponent later withdrew
its opposition but sought a decision on costs.
                                                                        By order of 17 April 2002 the President of the First Chamber
The Opposition Division decided that the applicant should               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
bear the costs of the opposition procedure. The Board of                ordered the removal from the register of Case T-309/00: S.A.
Appeal set this decision aside and ordered each of the parties          Cimenteries CBR v Commission of the European Communities.
to pay its own costs in respect of the opposition and appeal
proceedings.                                                            (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
The applicant is appealing against the decision of the Board of
Appeal and claims that the more specific Article 81(4) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) , not Article 81(3), is
applicable in the present case. The defendant thus failed to
take into account the fundamental assessment criteria and to                   Removal from the register of Case T-14/02 (1)
observe the principle of proportionality.
                                                                                (2002/C 169/78)
Moreover, in the applicant’s opinion, the defendant also
wrongly applied the assessment criteria in Article 81(3) in                               (Language of the case: English)
conjunction with Article 81(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 40/94. In the applicant’s view, that provision requires
that a decision on costs should take into account general               By order of 9 April 2002 the President of the Fifth Chamber
considerations of equity and fairness.                                  of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        ordered the removal from the register of Case T-14/02:
                                                                        Agrofair Benelux BV and Others v Commission of the
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the         European Communities.
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.


title: Case C-50/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2011 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — Obligation of the competent environmental authority to carry out an assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — More than one competent authority — Need to ensure an assessment of the interaction between factors likely to be directly or indirectly affected — Application of the directive to demolition works)

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 March 2011 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-50/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Obligation of the competent environmental authority to carry out an assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment - More than one competent authority - Need to ensure an assessment of the interaction between factors likely to be directly or indirectly affected - Application of the directive to demolition works)
   2011/C 130/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver, C. Clyne and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, Agent, G. Simons SC, D. McGrath BL)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Obligation to describe and assess the direct and indirect effects of a project on the factors listed in Article 3 of the Directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by failing to transpose Article 3 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003;

                           —

                           by failing to ensure that, where Irish planning authorities and the Environmental Protection Agency both have decision-making powers concerning a project, there will be complete fulfilment of the requirements of Articles 2 to 4 of Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35; and

                           —

                           by excluding demolition works from the scope of its legislation transposing Directive 85/337, as amended by Directive 2003/35,

                     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 4.4.2009.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance 26 October 2001 in Case T-184/01 R: IMS Health Inc. v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Competition law — Complaint — Alleged abuse of copyright — Commission decision providing for protective measures — Conditions for the grant of interim relief — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)

text:
15.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 144/45
2.    The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay those of the    made an order on 26 October 2001, the operative part of
      applicant;                                                         which is as follows:
3.    The Kingdom of Denmark is to bear its own costs.
                                                                         1.    Execution of the Commission Decision of 3 July 2001 relating
                                                                               to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC (Case COMP D3/
                                                                               38.044 — NDC Health/IMS Health: Interim measures) is
(1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.2001.                                                        suspended until such time as the Court of First Instance has
                                                                               given judgment in the main action;
                                                                         2.    Costs are reserved.
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                            INSTANCE
                        26 October 2001                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Case T-184/01 R: IMS Health Inc. v Commission of the                                            of 21 March 2002
                     European Communities
                                                                         in Case T-235/01: Georgios Caravelis v European Parlia-
(Proceedings for interim relief — Competition law —                                                     ment (1)
Complaint — Alleged abuse of copyright — Commission
decision providing for protective measures — Conditions for
                                                                         (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested
the grant of interim relief — Prima facie case — Urgency —
                                                                                measure — Case not proceeding to judgment)
                      Balancing of interests)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/95)
                         (2002/C 144/94)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         In Case T-235/01: Georgios Caravelis, an official of the
In Case T-184/01 R, IMS Health Inc., a company incorporated
                                                                         European Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented by
in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware,
                                                                         C. Tagaras, lawyer, v European Parliament (Agents: J. F. De
established at Fairfield, Connecticut (United States of America),
                                                                         Wachter, C. Karamarcos and N. Korogiannakis) — application
represented by N. Levy and J. Temple Lang, Solicitors, and
                                                                         for annulment of Vacancy Notice No 9186 relating to the
R. O’Donoghue, Barrister, v Commission of the European
                                                                         filling of the A 3 post of director of the Information Office in
Communities (Agents: E. Gippini Fournier, A. Whelan and
                                                                         Athens — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), compo-
F. Siredney-Garnier) supported by AzyX Deutschland GmbH
                                                                         sed of: J. D. Cooke, President, and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and
Geopharma Information Services, established at Neu-Isenburg
                                                                         P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 21 March
(Germany), represented by L. Levi, G. Vandersanden and
                                                                         2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
D. Dugois, lawyers, and NDC Health Corporation, a company
incorporated in accordance with the laws of the State of
Delaware, established at Atlanta, Georgia (United States of
America), represented by I. Forrester QC, F. Fine, Solicitor,            1.    There is no need to give a decision on the present application;
C. Price and A. F. Gagliardi, lawyers, with an address for service
in Luxembourg, and NDC Health GmbH & Co. KG, established                 2.    The parties are to bear their own costs.
at Bad Camberg (Germany), represented by I. Forrester QC,
F. Fine, Solicitor, C. Price and A. F. Gagliardi, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg: Application for interim
measures in respect of the Commission Decision of 3 July                 (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 82 EC
(Case COMP D3/38.044 — NDC Health/IMS Health: Interim
measures), the President of the Court of First Instance has


title: Case C-390/05: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — substances that deplete the ozone layer)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/16

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-390/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - substances that deplete the ozone layer)
   (2006/C 331/27)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Defendant(s): Hellenic Republic (represented by: N. Dafniou, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 16(5) and (6) and 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1) — Recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances — Failure to determine minimum qualification requirements for the personnel responsible — Failure to report to the Commission on the programmes related to the level of qualification required
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary for determining minimum qualification requirements for the personnel charged with the recovery, recycling, reclamation and destruction of controlled substances that deplete the ozone layer, by failing to submit to the Commission, by 31 December 2001, a report with information on the facilities available and the quantities of used controlled substances recovered, recycled, reclaimed or destroyed and by failing to take all the preventive measures necessary to ensure that fixed equipment with a refrigerating fluid charge of more than 3 kg is checked annually for leakages, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(5) and (6) and Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.


title: Case T-212/99: Action brought on 22 September 1999 by Hoechst Roussel Vet against the Commission of the European Communitie

text:
4.12.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 352/37
Action brought on 22 September 1999 by Hoechst Rous-                    the Standing Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products to
sel Vet against the Commission of the European Commun-                  enable the substance to be included in Annex III to that
                               itie                                     regulation. For two and a half years, however, the Commission
                                                                        failed to prepare any draft measures for the inclusion of the
                                                                        substance in Annex III and to submit such measures to the
                        (Case T-212/99)                                 Standing Committee for adoption. It was not until 23 April
                                                                        1999 that the Commission, following the applicant’s threats
                        (1999/C 352/65)                                 to initiate legal proceedings, referred the file back to the CVMP
                                                                        for a reassessment of the product. By way of explanation of its
                                                                        inaction, the Commission claims, in its letter of 16 July 1999
                                                                        (the contested letter), that the submission of a draft decision
                  (Language of the case: English)                       concerning the inclusion of ALTRENOGEST in Annex III has
                                                                        been postponed owing to concerns within the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               regarding the effects of this substance on public health; it relies
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              in this respect on alleged new scientific findings which surfaced
European Communities on 22 September 1999 by Hoechst                    during the work of DG XXIV’s ‘Scientific Committee on
Roussel Vet, a company having its registered office in Germany,         Veterinary Measures Relating to Public Health’.
represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Dirk Brinckman, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue Matthias Hardt.
                                                                        The applicant maintains on the one hand, that the reasons
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             invoked by the Commission for not complying with its
                                                                        obligations and for re-submitting the file to the CVMP
                                                                        manifestly infringe the provisions of Regulation No. 2377/90.
— annul the Commission decision of 16 July 1999 contained
                                                                        Allowing the Commission to re-submit the file to the CVMP,
    in the letter of the same date by which the Commission
                                                                        for reasons entirely unrelated to the applicant’s product, and
    has informed the applicant of its refusal to take the
                                                                        although there is a positive opinion of the CVMP following
    necessary measures to introduce ALTRENOGEST in Annex
                                                                        which the Commission has failed to take any action for more
    III to Regulation No 2377/90;
                                                                        than two years flies in the face of the whole legal framework
                                                                        set up by Regulation No. 2377/90, is not justified by any
— in addition, declare pursuant to Article 232 EC that the              scientific evidence or public health considerations and ignores
    Commission has failed to comply with its obligations                the Commission’s duty of care and of good management in
    under Community law and, more particularly, has failed,             the light of the upcoming deadline of 1 January 2000,
    following receipt of the definitive opinion of the CVMP,            after which the administration to food-producing animals of
    to prepare draft measures including ALTRENOGEST in                  veterinary medicinal products containing pharmacologically
    Annex III to Regulation No 2377/90 and failed to initiate           active substances which are not mentioned in Annexes I, II or
    the procedure under Article 8 of Regulation No 2377/90;             III of the Regulation No. 2377/90 will be prohibited in the
                                                                        European Union. It considers therefore that the decision of the
— order the Commission to bear the costs of the present                 Commission to resubmit the dossier to the CVMP and thus its
    proceedings.                                                        refusal to take the necessary measures to introduce the active
                                                                        substance in Annex III has to be annulled.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant is a pharmaceutical company which has                     The applicant stases, on the other hand, that the Commission
developed a pharmaceutical compound known under the                     has failed to act in violation of its obligations under Com-
name of ‘ALTRENOGEST’ and mainly used in pig breeding.                  munity law, given that it did not take any action whatsoever
On 10 February 1993 it submitted an application for the                 to prepare draft measures following receipt of the opinion of
establishment of maximum residue limits (‘MRL’) for ALTREN-             the CVMP and that it did not forthwith submit such measure
OGEST in conformity with Article 7 of Council Regulation                to the Standing Committee, but only asked for a re-
No 2377/90 laying down a Community procedure for the                    examination more than two years after the positive opinion of
establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary med-              the CVMP.
icinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (1). On 23 Februa-
ry 1993 the Commission sent the file to the Committee for
Veterinary Medicinal Products (‘CVMP’). On 16 January 1997,
the CVMP adopted its opinion concerning the MRL application
for ALTRENOGEST; it recommended that ALTRENOGEST be
introduced in Annex III to Regulation No 2377/90, that is to            (1) OJ 1990 L 224, p. 1.
say, that a provisional MRL be fixed, pending the examination
of a number of additional questions.
The applicant points out that under the procedure laid down
in Article 8 of Regulation No 2377/90, the Commission, once
it has received such an opinion, is under a legal obligation to
refer ‘without delay’ the draft of the measures to be taken to


title: Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-31/99)

text:
27.3.1999              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 86/13
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                         Commission Directive 96/28/EC of 10 May 1996
                                                                         adapting to technical progress Council Directive
The Commission submits that, as far as it is aware,                      76/116/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
Ireland continues in its infringement of Article 30 of the               Member States relating to fertilizers (1), the French
EC Treaty by:                                                            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under EC
                                                                         Treaty; and
Ð failing to adopt regulations amending the present
    standards of fineness regulations so as to recognise            2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
    those standards of fineness included in the proposed
    directive on the approximation of laws, regulations
    and administrative provisions of the Member States
    relating to articles of precious metal;                         The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
                                                                    those put forward in Case C-26/1999 (2); the period laid
                                                                    down in the directive expired on 31 May 1997.
Ð failing to adopt a proposed amendment to Section 9 of
    the Hallmarking Act 1981 so as to accept articles
                                                                    (1) OJ L 140, 13.6.1996, p. 30.
    struck with the sponsor's mark of another Member
                                                                    (2) See page 11 of this Official Journal.
    State where the legislation of that Member State
    authorises the marketing of the article and upon proof
    supplied by the Member State that the sponsor's mark
    is, in fact, registered in that Member State;
Ð failing to amend Section 2 of the Hallmarking Act
    1981 so as to permit the recognition of hallmarks               Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of
    struck in other Member States;                                  the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
Ð maintaining differences between approved hallmarks                                         (Case C-32/99)
    struck or articles manufactured in Ireland and those                                     (1999/C 86/26)
    hallmarks of the same type struck on imported
    articles.
                                                                    An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                    Communities on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities, represented by Richard B.
                                                                    Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of              Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil servant on secondment to
  the European Communities against the French Republic              its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                    service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de
                         (Case C-31/99)
                                                                    la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                         (1999/C 86/25)
                                                                    The Commission of the European Communities claims
An action against the French Republic was brought before            that the Court should:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
5 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright,
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a            1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                         administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                     Commission Directive 96/28/EC of 10 May 1996
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                adapting to technical progress Council Directive
                                                                         76/116/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                         Member States relating to fertilizers (1), the Grand
                                                                         Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                         obligations under EC Treaty; and
that the Court should:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force           2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and               costs.


title: Case C-110/00: Action brought on 23 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
10.6.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 163/11
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                The Commission claims that the Court should:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                 a) declare that, by not adopting and/or notifying to the
     period all the provisions necessary to comply with Council                  Commission the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
     Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending Direc-                          visions necessary to comply with Commission Directive
     tives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and                                97/59/EC (1) of 7 October 1997 adapting to technical
     90/642/EEC (1), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil                progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC (2) on the protec-
     its obligations under the Treaty; and                                       tion of workers from risks related to exposure to biological
                                                                                agents at work (seventh individual Directive within the
                                                                                meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (3), the
2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                               Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Article 2(1) of that directive;
                                                                           b) order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                 Pleas in law and main arguments
in Case C-105/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired
on 31 December 1998.
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those put
                                                                           forward in Case C-105/00 (4); according to the Commission
                                                                           the time-limit for transposition expired on 31 March 1998
(1) Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 amending Directives
                                                                           without Austria having adopted the necessary measures in full
    76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating             for all sectors and at all State levels, in particular at Land level.
    to the fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on,
    respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of animal
    origin, and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
    vegetables (OJ 1997 L 184, p. 33).                                     ( 1) OJ L 282, 15.10.1997, p. 33.
(2) See p. 10 of this Official Journal.                                    ( 2) OJ L 374, 31.12.1990, p. 1.
                                                                           ( 3) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.
                                                                           ( 4) Commission v Portugal, notice not yet published in the Official
                                                                                Journal.
Action brought on 23 March 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                        Action brought on 23 March 2000 by the Commission
                                 Austria                                   of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Austria
                           (Case C-110/00)
                                                                                (Case C-111/00)
                           (2000/C 163/18)                                                           (2000/C 163/19)
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before               An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 March               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 March
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Nicola Yerrell, of its Legal Service, and Clemens           represented by Nicola Yerrell, of its Legal Service, and Clemens
Ladenburger, on secondment to its Legal Service under an                   Ladenburger, on secondment to its Legal Service under an
exchange with national civil servants, with an address for                 exchange with national civil servants, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la                 service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, of its Legal Service, C 254, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.               Cruz, of its Legal Service, C 254, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-624/13 P: Appeal brought on 2 December 2013 by Iliad SA, Free infrastructure and Free SAS against the judgment delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-325/10 Iliad and Others v Commission

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/9

         Appeal brought on 2 December 2013 by Iliad SA, Free infrastructure and Free SAS against the judgment delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-325/10 Iliad and Others v Commission
   (Case C-624/13 P)
   2014/C 39/16
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Iliad SA, Free infrastructure, Free SAS (represented by: T. Cabot, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission, French Republic, Republic of Poland, Département des Hauts-de-Seine

      Forms of order sought

               —

               Set aside in its entirety the judgment of the General Court delivered on 16 September 2013 in Case T-325/10 Iliad, Free infrastructure and Free v Commission;

               —

               Grant the forms of order sought at first instance by Iliad, Free infrastructure and Free by annulling Commission Decision C(2009) 7426 Final of 30 September 2009 relating to compensation for the costs of providing a public service for the establishment and operation of a very-high-speed broadband electronic communications network in the Hauts-de-Seine department (State aide N 331/2008 — France) if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings is such as to permit final judgment in the matter;

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court if the Court considers that the state of the proceedings is not such as to permit final judgment in the matter;

               —

               If the Court gives judgment in the case, order the European Commission to pay the costs;

               —

               If the Court refers the case back to the General Court, reserve costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellants put forward six grounds in support of their appeal.
   First, the appellants argue that the General Court disregarded its obligation to state reasons in failing to address the second part of the plea alleging infringement by the Commission of its obligation to open the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU relating to the conclusions inferred from the commitments undertaken by the French authorities, indicating serious difficulties encountered by the Commission and on the basis of which the Commission was required to open the formal investigation procedure.
   Second, they complain that the General Court erred in law in calculating the duration of the preliminary investigation procedure conducted by the Commission. They submit that the notification by France could not be considered to have been completed within the prescribed periods and it accordingly should not have been taken into account. They further submit that the General Court erred in law in treating a request for ‘any’ observations from the Commission to the French authorities as a request for additional information within the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999. (1)

   Third, they rely on public policy grounds in alleging an error of law by the General Court in failing to note of its own motion that the Commission could not declare the disputed aid to be compatible with the Treaty when the notification of that aid ought to have been deemed to have been withdrawn, pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation No 659/1999. As the French authorities failed to respond to the request for additional information within the prescribed periods, the notification at issue ought to have been withdrawn pursuant to Article 5(3) of that regulation. Consequently, the Commission was not competent to rule on the notified measure, which the General Court should have held of its own motion in the judgment under appeal.
   Fourth, the General Court erred in law in the assessment of the market failure. That error of law results from the fact that the Court applied the universality test of market failure from the Olsen line of case-law, consisting in ascertaining whether competitors were providing a similar service and not a universal service.
   Fifth, the General Court erred in law with respect to the temporal application of the European Union law rules in assessing market failure. The error in law results from limiting the examination of the market failure to the years 2004 and 2005, and from the lack of prospective market analysis to determine whether the market failure can be established for the entire duration of application of the service of general economic interest.
   Sixth, the appellants submit that the General Court’s reasons were self-contradictory.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 May 2016 in Case E-19/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Prior authorisation schemes for establishment and cross-border services — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 31 EEA — Article 36 EEA — Justification — Proportionality)

text:
               2.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 66/30

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 10 May 2016
   in Case E-19/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Prior authorisation schemes for establishment and cross-border services — Directive 2006/123/EC — Article 31 EEA — Article 36 EEA — Justification — Proportionality)
   (2017/C 66/09)
   In Case E-19/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that by maintaining in force national rules on prior authorisation schemes for undertakings willing to establish themselves and/or to provide cross-border services in Liechtenstein, the Principality of Liechtenstein has breached its obligations arising from Articles 9, 10, 13 and 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market), as adapted to the EEA Agreement under its Protocol 1, and, to the extent that establishment and the provision of cross-border services fall outside the scope of that act, its obligations arising from Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 10 May 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that the Principality of Liechtenstein has breached its obligations arising from Articles 9, 10, 13 and 16 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market), as adapted to the EEA Agreement under its Protocol 1:

                           (a)

                           by maintaining in force Article 7 of the Liechtenstein Trade Act which sets up a prior authorisation scheme for undertakings intending to establish themselves in Liechtenstein;

                           (b)

                           by maintaining in force Article 8(1) of the Liechtenstein Trade Act in so far as it imposes conditions that are not clear and unambiguous for granting prior authorisation for undertakings wishing to establish themselves in Liechtenstein, namely the conditions to have the necessary personnel and to have an adequate command of the German language;

                           (c)

                           by failing to ensure that the conditions for the prior authorisation laid down by the Liechtenstein Trade Act do not duplicate requirements and controls which are equivalent or essentially comparable as regards their purpose to which the service provider is already subject in another EEA State;

                           (d)

                           by failing to ensure that the procedure and formalities concerning the prior authorisation under the Liechtenstein Trade Act are clearly laid down; and,

                           (e)

                           by maintaining in force Article 21 of the Liechtenstein Trade Act which requires undertakings to notify in advance their intention to provide cross-border services in Liechtenstein.

               2.

               Declares that, to the extent that the services covered by the Liechtenstein Trade Act fall outside the scope of the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex X to the EEA Agreement (Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market), as adapted to the EEA Agreement under its Protocol 1, the Principality of Liechtenstein has breached its obligations arising from Articles 31 and 36 of the EEA Agreement:

                           (a)

                           by maintaining in force Article 7 of the Liechtenstein Trade Act; and,

                           (b)

                           by maintaining in force Article 21 of the Liechtenstein Trade Act.

               3.

               Orders the Principality of Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Action brought on 16 December 1996 by Margarida Maria Mendes Pires Afonso against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-210/96)

text:
No C 54/32            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 2 . 97
21 February 1995 , in order to remind him that his leave               — annul the Commission 's decision rejecting the claim
on personal grounds had come to an end . It was not until                   for compensation for the damage suffered by the
 19 April 1996 that the applicant was reinstated, by                        applicant,
decision of the appointing authority, in the post which he
now occupies. That decision took effect from 1 June 1996 ,             — order the Commission to reinstate the applicant in
and the applicant therefore took up his duties again with                   respect of the period from 1 January 1992 to 1 July
effect from that date .                                                      1993 and to pay him the remuneration to which he is
                                                                            entitled for that period, together with default interest
The applicant states           in that regard that,       in the            at the rate of 8 % per annum as from the date on
circumstances , the defendant's conduct was unlawful .                      which the remuneration due first became payable until
In his view, the semi-unconditional nature of the                           the day on which payment is effected,
reinstatement obligation laid down in Article 40 ( 4 ) ( d ) of
the Staff Regulations has been clearly confirmed by the                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
relevant case-law, subject only to the availability of a
vacant post corresponding to the abilities required of the             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
person concerned . That obligation cannot therefore be
disregarded on account of any professional activities                  The applicant, a Commission official on leave on personal
which the official in question was pursuing on the date                grounds since 1 January 1989, asks the Commission to
when the first post fell vacant. Consequently, the claim by            pay compensation for the damage suffered through not
the appointing authority, in its decision rejecting the                being reinstated, in accordance with Article 40 ( 4 ) ( d ) of
complaint, that it took into account the applicant's                   the Staff Regulations, in the first post to fall vacant and,
inability immediately to free himself of his responsibilities          in particular, in post A 7/4 007165 , declared vacant in
as professor at the University of Lausanne in order to                 DG III/D/ 1 on 22 October 1991 . The Commission has
return to the Parliament cannot constitute a valid excuse
                                                                       failed as yet to show that it carried out a genuine and
in the circumstances . In actual fact, the applicant never             detailed    examination      of his  abilities vis-a-vis   those
put forward any obstacle to his reinstatement.                         required by the post in question . Furthermore, the
                                                                       applicant alleges that the Commission 's appraisal of his
Even if ( which is denied ) the head of the appointing                 adaptability, which led to the refusal to reinstate him in
authority was legitimately led by the applicant to believe             the first post to fall vacant, discloses a manifest error of
                                                                       assessment .
that that authority could postpone the date of his
reinstatement, it was not open to the appointing authority,
for its part, to disregard the wording and purpose of the
aforementioned provision of the Staff Regulations in order
unilaterally to evade its obligations .
                                                                       Action brought on 16 December 1996 by Margarida
                                                                       Maria Mendes Pires Afonso against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-2 10/96 )
Action brought on 12 December 1996 by Adam Buick                                                 ( 97/C 54/53 )
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-209/96 )                                              (Language of the case: French)
                           ( 97/C 54/52
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the Europeah
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                (Language of the case: French)                         Instance of the European Communities on 16 December
                                                                       1996 by Margarida Maria Mendes Pires Afonso, residing
                                                                       in Luxembourg, represented by Christophe Steyaert, of the
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       the applicant's residence, 6 rue Henri Pensis .
Instance of the European Communities on 12 December
1996 by Adam Buick, residing in Brussels, represented by
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the   Brussels   Bar,    with    an   address  for    service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30                 — annul the decision of the appointing authority of
rue de Cessange .                                                           26 February 1996 in so far as it appoints the applicant
                                                                            to grade A 7, step 3 , and implicitly refuses to appoint
                                                                            her to grade A 6,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — annul the decision of the appointing authority of
— declare that the Commission acted unlawfully in not                       1 October 1996 expressly rejecting the complaint
    reinstating the applicant on 1 January 1992 in post                     which the applicant submitted against the above
    007165-ex Strauss, declared vacant in DG III/D/ 1 on                    decision and which was lodged at the Secretariat
    22 October 1991 ,                                                       General of the Commission on 26 June 1996 ,
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 54/33
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the                       — pursuant to the provisions of Article 215 of the Treaty,
     proceedings.                                                         find that the Community has incurred non-contractual
                                                                          liability and that this has resulted in damage to
                                                                          Europeenne Automobile for which reparation must be
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       made,
The applicant, an official in grade A 7, step 3 , claims that
there has been an error of law in the application of                 — consequently, award Européenne Automobile the sum
Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations, particularly in so             of ECU 246 000 as compensation ,
far as the statement of reasons of the appointing authority
makes it impossible for that provision to have any
independent application vis-a-vis the first paragraph of             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Article 27 and Article 32 of the Staff Regulations, which
are, however, designed to cover different situations
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
regarding the classification in grade of recently recruited
officials .   Furthermore,     the    Commission 's    conduct
constitutes a breach of the principle of equal treatment of          The applicant, an undertaking carrying on business as an
officials since the Commission places in the same grade all          intermediary in the distribution of motor vehicles by way
external candidates, irrespective of the fact that they have         of parallel imports made by it as agent for the final
very different qualifications as regards relevant                    consumer, in accordance with the provisions of
professional experience, and officials recruited as a result         Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 123/85 , states that it
of integral ' establishment' competitions retain the grade           lodged a complaint with the Commission on 27 July 1994
which they had as temporary staff prior to establishment.            criticizing the steps taken by the Peugeot Group ( PSA ) in
In contrast to candidates recruited directly as officials,           relation to Peugeot concessionaries of its subsidiaries
temporary staff are graded in accordance with rules that             outside France to dissuade them from selling vehicles to
allow full account to be taken of experience acquired                French intermediaries, with a view to partitioning the
before they entered the Commission's service .                       market. By letter of 9 October 1996 , the Commission
                                                                     informed the applicant of its decision to reject the
Finally, the applicant considers that the appointing                 complaint. That decision forms the subject-matter of the
authority manifestly erred in its assessment of the facts            present case (').
when it formed the view that her professional and
academic qualifications were unexceptional, whether in
general or with reference to the requirements of the post            The applicant takes the view that it has adduced sufficient
in question .                                                        evidence to establish the existence of the agreement of
                                                                     which it complains and that the contested decision is
                                                                     vitiated by a manifest error as to the probative value of
                                                                     that evidence . It also considers that the Commission had
                                                                     no excuse for not investigating the matter since it was well
                                                                     aware that failure by it to state its position would allow
                                                                     the untrammelled development of as serious an illegal
Action brought on 17 December 1996 by Européenne                     course of conduct as a partitioning of the market, directly
Automobile Sari against the Commission of the European               detrimental to the applicant, but also jeopardizing the
                          Communities                                development of the wider market and adversely affecting
                       ( Case T-211 /96 )                            the interests of consumers . Finally, the applicant contests
                                                                     the argument that there was insufficient Community
                          ( 97/C 5.4/54 )                            interest, on which the Commission relies in its reasons for
                                                                     the contested decision .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     With regard to its action for damages, the applicant
An action against the Commission of the European                     submits that, by refusing to examine the documents which
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    indicated anti-competitive practices on the part of PSA,
Instance of the European Communities on 17 December                  the Commission erred and caused the Community to incur
1996 by Europeenne Automobile Sari , having its                      non-contractual liability. It also argues that this refusal to
registered office in Carcassonne ( France ), represented by          intervene and to adopt appropriate measures has had, and
Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address              continues to have , particularly deleterious effects on its
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot                 supplies and development. From this it concludes that it is
Schiltz, 4 rue Beatrix de Bourbon .                                  entitled to damages for the harm which it has suffered .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         (') An action for failure to act and for damages which was
                                                                         brought by the applicant in the context of the same complaint
                                                                         is pending before the Court of First Instance ( Case T-9/96 , OJ
— pursuant to the provisions of Article 173 of the Treaty,               No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 ).
     annul the decision which the Commission notified to
     Europeenne Automobile on 9 October 1996 not to
     investigate the complaint lodged on 27 July 1994,


title: Case C-358/06: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 11 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/29

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 11 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-358/06) (1)

   (2007/C 183/53)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 294, 14.10.2006.


title: Case C-54/11: Order of the President of the Court of 5 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom)) — JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities Limited v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom)) — JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities Limited v Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
   (Case C-54/11) (1)

   2011/C 311/49
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 120, 16.4.2011.


title: Case C-307/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 August 2009 — Vicoplus SC PUH; other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 3 August 2009 — Vicoplus SC PUH; other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid
   (Case C-307/09)
   2009/C 267/62
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Vicoplus SC PUH

      Other party: Minister van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 49 EC and 50 EC be interpreted as precluding a national arrangement, as set out in Article 2 of the Netherlands Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), read in conjunction with Article 1e(1)(c) of the Decree implementing the Law on the Employment of Foreign Nationals (Besluit uitvoering Wet arbeid vreemdelingen), under which a work permit is required for the hiring-out of workers as referred to in Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC? (1)

               2.

               On the basis of what criteria should it be determined whether workers have been hired out within the meaning of Article 1(3)(c) of Directive 96/71/EC?

      (1)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1).


C 289/20               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23.11.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-68/02 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-84/02 (1)
                        (2002/C 289/38)                                                    (2002/C 289/39)
By order of 3 September 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                   By order of 4 September 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-68/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        from the register of Case C-84/02 (Referral for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Braunschweig): Schaper &
                                                                   Brümmer GmbH & Co KG v Bezirksregierung Braunschweig.
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                                                                   (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.2.2002.


title: Case C-283/07: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 75/442/EEC — Article 1 — Concept of waste — Scrap intended for use in iron and steel activities — High-quality refuse-derived fuel — Incorrect transposition)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-283/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 75/442/EEC - Article 1 - Concept of waste - Scrap intended for use in iron and steel activities - High-quality refuse-derived fuel - Incorrect transposition)
   (2009/C 44/20)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by I. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and G. Fiengo, Avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) — Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) and scrap intended for use in iron and steel and metallurgical activities — Exclusion from the scope of the national transposition law
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force provisions such as

                           —

                           Article 1(25) to (27) and (29)(a) of Law No 308 of 15 December 2004 delegating power to the government to reform, coordinate and supplement legislation in environmental matters and direct implementation measures, and

                           —

                           Article 1(29)(b) of Law No 308 of 15 December 2004 and Articles 183(1)(s) and 229(2) of Legislative Decree No 152 of 3 April 2006 laying down rules in environmental matters,

                     under which certain scrap intended for use in iron and steel and metallurgical activities and high-quality refuse-derived fuel (RDF-Q) respectively are excluded a priori from the scope of the Italian legislation on waste transposing Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(a) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 199 of 25.8.2007.


title: Appeal brought on 20 June 1997 by Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter against the judgment delivered on 16 April 1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-66/95 between Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-228/97 P)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 252/ 17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— Failure to fulfil the obligations resulting from                         The appellant complains that Community law has been
     Articles 1 (2 ), 2 ( 1 ) (c ) and 2 ( 5 ) of the Directive: Law       infringed and, in particular, that, in reaching its decision,
     No 93/1416 does not guarantee that the penalty will                   the Court of First Instance disregarded its obligation to
     have a genuinely dissuasive effect. It establishes, by                extrapolate the law.
     way of derogation, a specific interlocutory procedure
     which is less restrictive than that provided for under
     national civil law.                                                   (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 , p . 26 .
                                                                           ( 2 ) OJ No C 181 , 4 . 6 . 1997, p. 13 .
— Failure to fulfil the obligations resulting from
     Chapter 2 of the Directive: the fact that recourse to
     the attestation procedure is optional for the
     contracting entities does not in any way mean that the
     attestation system is optional for the Member States,
     which are obliged to organize a system complying                      Action brought on 24 June 1997 by the Commission of
     with the provisions of Chapter 2 of the Directive .                   the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
— Failure to fulfil the obligations resulting from                                                     ( Case C-229/97)
     Chapter 4 of the Directive: France has failed to specify
     the detailed rules governing intervention by the                                                    ( 97/C 252/34 )
     national authorities called upon to forward requests
     for conciliation to the Commission (Article 9 ( 2 ) of
     the Directive ). Lastly, Chapter 4 should have been                   An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
     transposed in its entirety, if only for the purposes of               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     informing the persons concerned, as defined in                        on 24 June 1997 by the Commission of the European
     Article 9 ( 1 ), of the possibility open to them of having             Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
     recourse to conciliation .                                             of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                            service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
(') OJ No L 76 , 23 . 3 . 1992, p . 14 .
                                                                            Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                                period the laws, regulations or administrative
Appeal brought on 20 June 1997 by Hedwig Kuchlenz                                provisions necessary to comply fully and correctly
Winter against the judgment delivered on 16 April 1997                            with Council Directive 79/869/EEC H of 9 October
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                        1979 concerning the methods of measurement and
European Communities in Case T-66/95 between Hedwig                               frequencies of sampling and analysis of surface water
Kuchlenz-Winter and the Commission of the European                                intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the
                              Communities
                                                                                Member States, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
                         ( Case C-228/97 P)                                       fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of
                             ( 97/C 252/33 )                                      Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 13 of
                                                                                Directive 79/869/EEC in combination with Article 395
                                                                                and Annex XXXVI of the Act of Accession ( 2 ),
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 April
 1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-66/95 between                         — declare, in the alternative, that, by failing to inform
Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter and the Commission of the                                  the Commission forthwith of such measures, the
 European Communities was brought before the Court of                             Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
Justice of the European Communities on 20 June 1997 by                            under those provisions,
 Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, represented by Dieter Rogalla,
 Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxembourg                    — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .
 at the Chambers of Decker, Braun & Wagner, 16 Avenue
 Marie-Therese .
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
 — uphold all four heads of claim ( l ) advanced by the                      a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
      applicant and set aside the judgment (2 ) of the Court                 upon each Member State to which it is addressed. In the
      of First Instance,                                                     present case, under Article 13 of Directive 79/869/EEC,
                                                                             the Member States are to bring into force the necessary
 — order the respondent to pay all the costs, including                      provisions within two years of its notification. That period
      those of the proceedings before the Court of First                     expired on 1 January 1989 without Portugal having
      Instance .                                                             adopted the provisions necessary to comply with, firstly,


title: Case C-283/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — M.S. v P.S. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Article 41(1) — Recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Enforcement of a decision in a Member State — Application submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement — National legislation requiring recourse to be had to the Central Authority of the Member State of enforcement)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/22

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — M.S. v P.S.
   (Case C-283/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 41(1) - Recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Enforcement of a decision in a Member State - Application submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement - National legislation requiring recourse to be had to the Central Authority of the Member State of enforcement))
   (2017/C 104/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: M.S.

      Defendant: P.S.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Chapter IV of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, in particular Article 41(1) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a maintenance creditor who has obtained an order in one Member State and wishes to enforce it in another Member State may make an application directly to the competent authority of the latter Member State, such as a specialised court, and cannot be required to submit the application to that court through the Central Authority of the Member State of enforcement;

               2.

               Member States are required to give full effect to the right laid down in Article 41(1) of Regulation No 4/2009 by amending, where appropriate, their rules of procedure. In any event, it is for the national court to apply Article 41(1), if necessary refusing to apply any conflicting provision of national law and, as a consequence, to allow a maintenance creditor to submit her application directly to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement, even if national law does not make provision for such an application.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


title: Case T-609/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/24

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Laverana v OHIM (ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION)
   (Case T-609/14)
   2014/C 361/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Laverana GmbH & Co. KG (Wennigsen, Germany) (represented by J. Wachinger, M. Zöbisch and D. Chatterjee, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2014 in case R 123/2014-4;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contains the word elements ‘ORGANIC PROTEIN RICH PLANT COMPLEX FROM OUR OWN PRODUCTION’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 9 22  986

      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Misuse of powers by a decision on the basis of competition policy considerations


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 4 October 1996 in Case T-5/96: Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Sven Åke Henrikson v. Commission of the European Communities (Common agricultural policy - Sugar beet - Regulation (EC) No 1734/95 - Specific agricultural conversion rate - No conversion rate for Sweden - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
23 . 11 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 354/27
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               by Miguel Ferrão Castelo Branco, of the Lisbon Bar, with an
                        of 4 October 1996                               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Francois Brouxel , 6 Rue Zithe, against Commission of the
in Case T-5 /96 : Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and               European Communities ( Agents : Maria Teresa Figueira and
Sven Ake Henrikson v. Commission of the European                        Knut Simonsson ) — application for suspension of the
                          Communities (')
                                                                        operation of the Commission Decision of 12 December
(Common agricultural policy — Sugar beet — Regulation                   1995 ordering reimbursement of Esc 4 267 218 paid as
(EC) No 1 734/95 — Specific agricultural conversion rate —              assistance from the European Social Fund for a vocational
No conversion rate for Sweden — Action for annulment —                  training programme — the President of the Court of First
                          Inadmissibility)                              Instance has made an order on 8 October 1996 , the
                           ( 96/C 354/54 )                              operative part of which is as follows :
                  (Language of the case: English)                       1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
In Case T-5/96 : Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening, having
its registered office in Malmö ( Sweden ), and Sven Ake                 2.   The costs are reserved.
Henrikson, residing in Lund ( Sweden ), represented by
Otfried        Lieberknecht and Wolfgang Kirchhoff,
Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, and Michael Schütte,
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 62 Avenue
Guillaume, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and James
Macdonald Flett ) — application for the annulment of the
Commission decision contained in the letter of 27 October               Action brought on 5 June 1996 by Assicurazioni Generali
 1995 ( reference D(95 ) VI/ 1242/95 ) refusing to fix for              SpA and Unicredito SpA against Commission of the
Sweden the specific agricultural conversion rate for                                        European Communities
minimum sugar beet prices for the period from 1 January                                         ( Case T-87/96 )
 1995 to 30 June 1995 — the Court of First Instance ( First
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/56 )
Chamber ), composed of: A. Saggio, President, V. Tiili and
R. M. Moura Ramos , Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made
an order on 4 October 1996 , the operative part of which is
as follows :
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 1 . The application is dismissed as inadmissible.                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
2 . The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall also            Instance of the European Communities on 5 June 1996 by
      bear, jointly and severally, those incurred by the                Assicurazioni Generali SpA, of Trieste ( Italy ), and
      Commission .                                                      Unicredito SpA, of Treviso ( Italy ), represented by Aurelio
                                                                        Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar, and ClaudioTesauro, of the
 (') OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 .                                       Naples Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert Premier.
                                                                        The applicants claim that the Court should :
     ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                — annul the Commission decision of 25 March 1996 in
                        of 8 October 1996                                    Case No IV/M.711 Generali/Unicredito;
 in Case T-84/96 R: Cipeke — Comercio e Industria de
 Papel , Ld .a, v. Commission of the European                           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                             Communities
 (Socialpolicy — European Social Fund — Decision ordering                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
partial reimbursement ofassistance for a vocational training
 programme — Interim measures — Request for suspension
           of operation — Urgency — No urgency)                          The applicants, which are insurance companies, gave notice,
                            ( 96/C 354/55 )                              under Council Regulation No 4064/89 , of the creation of a
                                                                         joint venture , called Casse e Generali Vita SpA ( CG Vita ),
                                                                         designed to operate in the life assurance market, on the
                 (Language of the case: Portuguese)                      assumption that it amounted to a concentration; they now
                                                                         contest the Commission 's refusal to treat the operation
 In Case T-84/96 R: Cipeke — Comercio e Industria de                     notified to it as falling within the scope of the
 Papel , Ld . a, whose registered office is in Lisbon, represented       abovementioned regulation .


title: Case F-117/14: Action brought on 23 October 2014  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/56

         Action brought on 23 October 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-117/14)
   (2015/C 007/70)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz and D. Verbeke, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions to credit the pension rights acquired by the applicant in the Union’s pension scheme under the new general implementing provisions relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions of the Commission of 10 March and 20 May 2014 fixing the calculation of his pension rights to be credited acquired before his entry into service with the Commission;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by a decision of that court of 27 March 1996 in the case of Danmarks Aktive Handelsrejsende acting as Agent for Carina Mosbæk v. Lønmodtagernes Garantifond (Case C-117/96)

text:
1 . 6 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 158/9
      contrary to Article 95 of the EC Treaty, which taxes             Handelsrejsende acting as Agent for Carina Mosbsek v .
      electricity supplied from other Member States more               Lonmodtagernes Garantifond on the following question:
      heavily than domestically produced electricity ?
                                                                       In a situation where the employer is not established in the
3 . If the answer to Question 1 or 2 is in the affirmative, is         Member State in which the employee is resident and is solely
      the system described therein to be regarded as contrary          represented in the State of the employee's residence by way
      to the EC Treaty in its entirety or in some respects ?           of the said employee's work, which, inter alia, is carried out
                                                                       in office premises rented by the employer for the employee's
                                                                       use , is it the guarantee institution in the country where the
                                                                       employer is established or the guarantee institution in the
                                                                       country where the employee is resident which, on the
                                                                       employer's insolvency, according to Article 3 of Directive
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                       80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the
by order of 8 February 1996 in the case of Reisebiiro Binder
                                                                       Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
         GmbH v. Finanzamt Stuttgart-Kôrperschaften
                                                                       event of the insolvency of their employer ( l ) is to guarantee
                        ( Case C-1 16/96                               payment of the employee's outstanding claims resulting
                          ( 96/C 158/ 19 )                             from the employment relationship in question ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (') OJ No L 283 , 28 . 10 . 1980 , p . 23 .
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
( Federal Finance Court), Fifth Chamber, of 8 February
1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April
1996 , in the case of Reisebiiro Binder GmbH v . Finanzamt
Stuttgart-Kôrperschaften          ( Stuttgart    Tax      Office :
Corporations ), on the following questions :
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lansràtten,
Is Article 9 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Directive 77/388/EEC (') to be             County of Kopparberg, by order of that court of 22 March
interpreted as meaning that for the determination of the               1996 in the case of Jessica Safir v. County of Kopparberg
taxable amount for that part of the transport which takes                                        Tax Authority
place within the country in the case of cross-frontier                                         ( Case C-l 18/96 )
transport of passengers the inclusive consideration :                                            ( 96/C 158/21 )
( a ) must always be apportioned according to the
       proportion of the distances covered, so that stopping           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       and waiting times between the portions of the                   European Communities by an order of the Lansràtten
       transport, for example with educational trips, are not          ( County Administrative Court ) Kopparberg of 22 March
       taken into account, or                                          1 996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 12 April
                                                                       1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Jessica Safir
( b ) does the provision contain only a rule with regard to the        v . County of Kopparberg Tax Authority on the following
       place where the transport services are supplied , under         question :
       which that place is to be determined only according to
       the distances covered, so that the Member States are            Where in a Member State , the taxation of savings policies
       free to determine the criterion by which the inclusive          issued by domestic life assurance companies and foreign life
       consideration is to be apportioned between the taxable          assurance companies conducting insurance business in the
       and the non-taxable parts of the transport ?                    Member State through an establishment, takes the form of a
                                                                       tax on yield from insurance capital calculated in a standard
C ) OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 .                                        way and levied on the insurer, is it contrary to Articles 6 , 59,
                                                                       60 or 73b and 73d of the Treaty of Rome for tax to be
                                                                       charged — with the aim of maintaining competitive
                                                                       neutrality between domestic and foreign savings policies —
                                                                       on insurance premiums paid by policyholders resident in the
                                                                       Member State under life assurance policies contracted with
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by            insurers which are established in another Member State and
a decision of that court of 27 March 1996 in the case of               which are operating in the firstmentioned Member State in
Danmarks Aktive Handelsrejsende acting as Agent for                    accordance with the rules on corss-border insurance
       Carina Mosbaek v. Lonmodtagernes Garantifond                    activities, if the tax on the aforementioned insurance
                        ( Case C-1 17/96 )                             premiums can, upon application to the tax administration,
                           ( 96/C 158/20 )                             be reduced entirely, or by 50 % in the event that the
                                                                       insurance company established abroad is subject to income
                                                                       tax in the State in which it is domiciled that is comparable to
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 the tax charged on domestic savings policies in the other
European Communities by an order of the 0stre Landsret                 Member State ?
( Eastern Regional Court ) of 27 March 1996 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 12 April 1996 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Danmarks Aktive