               29.5.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/6

         Action brought on 13 April 2004 by K.M. Mayer, Tilly Forstbetriebe GesmbH, A. Volpini de Maestri and J. Volpini de Maestri against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-137/04)
   (2004/C 146/09)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 April 2004 by K.M. Mayer, Eisentratten (Austria), Tilly Forstbetriebe GesmbH, Treibach (Austria), A. Volpini de Maestri, Spittal/Drau (Austria), and J. Volpini de Maestri, Seeboden (Austria), represented by M. Schaffgotsch, lawyer.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the entire contested decision of the Commission; or,

         should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative,

               —

               annul the contested decision in respect of all Austrian sites of Community importance (Code AT in Annex I to the contested decision); or,

         should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative,

               —

                           (a)

                           annul the contested decision of the Commission insofar as it includes site AT 2102000 ‘Nockberge’ and

                           (b)

                           annul the contested decision of the Commission insofar as it includes site AT 2119000 ‘Gut Walterskirchen’; or,

         should that form of order not be granted, in the alternative,

               —

               annul the contested decision insofar as it includes sites declared in Annex I to be sites of Community importance for habitats and species which, in the standard data forms submitted by the Member States, were awarded a degree of representativity and a global assessment grade of B, C and D (or, in the alternative, C and D, or, in the further alternative, C), with regard to

                           (a)

                           all sites listed in the contested decision (see Annex I), or

                           (b)

                           all Austrian sites (Code AT in Annex I), or

                           (c)

                           merely the sites AT 2102000 ‘Nockberge’ and AT 2119000 ‘Gut Walterskirchen’;

               —

               in any event, however, order the Commission to pay the costs to the authorised representative of the applicants.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicants' action challenges Commission Decision of 22 December 2003 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeographical region. (1) The applicants are farmers and foresters who operate agricultural and forestry businesses, including ancillary businesses, on their properties, which are located in areas declared in the contested decision to be ‘sites of Community importance’ (SCI). The applicants submit that, by the Decision, they have been made addressees of rules of Community law. The Decision interferes with the applicants' right to land ownership – which is to be protected in accordance with the constitutional tradition of Community law – automatically, without there having been any balancing of interests, without exception and without appropriate compensation (or even mere provision for compensation) and to an extent much greater that which may be necessary on account of any social obligation. This constitutes an infringement of the Treaty within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 230 EC, with the result that the contested decision must be annulled.
   The applicants argue that the contested decision is also inconsistent with the very Directive on which it is based. (2) The criteria necessary for determining the required financing were not properly drawn up and the coherence of the conservation-area network required under the Directive is not guaranteed.
   Moreover, the applicants claim that the Commission failed in the contested decision to make expressly the required statements specifying the species and habitats for which the sites now listed by it as ‘SCIs’ are actually of Community importance. Finally, the applicants submit that, in respect of the conservation areas affecting them, the content of the decision is based on erroneous technical information. The sites were thus wrongly declared SCIs in respect of particular species and habitats and the contested decision must be annulled for this reason also.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 14, p. 21.

      (2)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).


title: Case C-410/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt Wien by order of 8 October 2001 in review proceedings brought by 1. FRITSCH, CHIARI & PARTNER, Ziviltechniker GmbH, 2. Büro Axis Ingenieurleistungen, 3. Vasko & Partner Ingenieure, Ziviltechniker für Bauwesen GmbH, 4. Haus der Technik DI A. Gobiet und DI F. Schweighofer Ziviltechniker GmbH, 5. Hopferwieser, Dipl.-Ing. Walter, 6. GC General Contract DI Wolfgang Wisserodt Ingenieurgesellschaft m.b.H, a bidding consortium against Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen- Finanzierungs-AG (ASFINAG)

text:
C 31/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2.2.2002
R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Kingdom              GmbH, 4. Haus der Technik DI A. Gobiet und DI F. Schweig-
of Spain (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta), Italian Republic (Agents:        hofer Ziviltechniker GmbH, 5. Hopferwieser, Dipl.-Ing. Walter,
U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri), and Commission of the                 6. GC General Contract DI Wolfgang Wisserodt Ingenieurge-
European Communities (Agents: P.J. Kuijper and T. van Rijn)              sellschaft m.b.H, a bidding consortium, against Autobahnen-
— application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC)                   und Schnellstraßen- Finanzierungs-AG (ASFINAG) on the
No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997 introducing safeguard measures                 following questions:
in respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
countries and territories (OJ 1997 L 151, p. 8) — the Court,             Question 1
composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann and
F. Macken (Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,             Is Article 1(3) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 Decem-
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.P. Puissochet, L. Sevón,                ber 1989 (1) on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; P. Léger,              administrative provisions relating to the application of review
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the             procedures to the award of public supply and public works
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in                  contracts to be interpreted as meaning that the review
which it:                                                                procedure must be available to any undertaking which has
                                                                         submitted a bid, or applied to participate, in a public procure-
                                                                         ment procedure?
1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible.
                                                                         In the event that the answer to Question 1 is no:
2.    Orders the Netherlands Antilles to pay the costs.
                                                                         Question 2
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic and the
                                                                         Is the abovementioned provision to be understood as meaning
      Commission of the European Communities to bear their own
                                                                         that an undertaking only has or had an interest in a particular
      costs.
                                                                         public contract if — in addition to its participating in the
                                                                         public procurement procedure — it takes or took all steps
                                                                         available to it under national law to prevent the contract from
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                being awarded to another bidder and so to secure the award
                                                                         of the contract to itself?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 395, p. 33.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
beamt Wien by order of 8 October 2001 in review
proceedings brought by 1. FRITSCH, CHIARI & PART-
NER, Ziviltechniker GmbH, 2. Büro Axis Ingenieurleis-
tungen, 3. Vasko & Partner Ingenieure, Ziviltechniker für                Action brought on 23 October 2001 by the Commission
Bauwesen GmbH, 4. Haus der Technik DI A. Gobiet und                      of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
DI F. Schweighofer Ziviltechniker GmbH, 5. Hopferwie-
ser, Dipl.-Ing. Walter, 6. GC General Contract DI Wolfgang                                        (Case C-420/01)
Wisserodt Ingenieurgesellschaft m.b.H, a bidding consor-
tium against Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen- Finan-
                   zierungs-AG (ASFINAG)                                                           (2002/C 31/04)
                         (Case C-410/01)
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                          (2002/C 31/03)                                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 October
                                                                         2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Hendrik Van Lier and Roberto Amorosi, acting
                                                                         as Agents.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 8 October 2001 by
the Bundesvergabeamt Wien (Austrian Federal Procurement                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Office, Vienna), which was received at the Court Registry on
16 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the review                  —     Declare that, by applying rules to drinks manufactured
proceedings brought by 1. FRITSCH, CHIARI & PARTNER,                           and marketed in other Member States prohibiting the
Ziviltechniker GmbH, 2. Büro Axis Ingenieurleistungen,                         marketing in Italy of energy drinks containing caffeine in
3. Vasko & Partner Ingenieure, Ziviltechniker für Bauwesen                     excess of a certain limit, without showing how such a


title: Case C-534/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine Srl v Regione Lazio (Common agricultural policy — EAGGF — Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 — Exclusion of investments relating to the processing of products from third countries — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/3

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine Srl v Regione Lazio
   (Case C-534/06) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - EAGGF - Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 - Exclusion of investments relating to the processing of products from third countries - Principle of proportionality)
   (2008/C 183/04)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte Suprema di Cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Industria Lavorazione Carni Ovine Srl

      Defendant: Regione Lazio
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products (OJ 1990 L 91, p. 1) — Exclusion of investments in the marketing and/or processing of products from third countries — Exclusion in the case of investments which also concern products from Member States, complying with the specific programme under which the financing was obtained
   Operative part of the judgment
   On a proper construction of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, payment of financial assistance is not excluded in cases of the marketing or processing of products including products originating beyond the territory of the Community, when the specific programme for which that financial assistance was granted has been observed, in so far as products originating within the Community have been marketed or processed in the quantities provided for.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-716/16: Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Pfizer and Pfizer Santé familiale v Commission (Action for annulment — Customs union — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff and statistical nomenclature — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Tariff subheadings — Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/33

         Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — Pfizer and Pfizer Santé familiale v Commission
   (Case T-716/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Customs union - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff and statistical nomenclature - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Tariff subheadings - Customs duties applicable to goods classified under those tariff subheadings - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 293/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Pfizer Ltd (Sandwich, United Kingdom) and Pfizer Santé familiale (Paris, France) (represented by: L. Catrain González, lawyer, and E. Wright, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Caeiros and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2016/1140 of 8 July 2016 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2016 L 189, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Pfizer Ltd and Pfizer Santé familiale shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 12.12.2016.


title: Case C-208/17 P: Appeal brought on 21 April 2017 by NF against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-192/16: NF v European Council

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/12

         Appeal brought on 21 April 2017 by NF against the order of the General Court (First Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 28 February 2017 in Case T-192/16: NF v European Council
   (Case C-208/17 P)
   (2017/C 231/16)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: NF (represented by: P. O’Shea, BL, I. Whelan, BL, B. Burns, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Council

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the whole of the order of the General Court of 28 February 2017 by which the General Court held that the action be dismissed on the ground of the General Court’s lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine it;

               —

               Give a final judgment in the matter that is the subject of this appeal and hold that the General Court was wrong in law to decline jurisdiction and order the respondent in case T-192/16 to pay the costs of the appellant in respect of the order of the General Court and of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this appeal;

               —

               Remit the issues raised in these proceedings for adjudication back to the General Court with a direction that it should accept jurisdiction.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               Failure to give reasons;

               2.

               Failure to properly consider whether the challenged agreement was in reality a decision of the respondent;

               3.

               Ignoring relevant factual issues;

               4.

               Failure to consider evidence that was before it;

               5.

               Failure to fully investigate and assess material issues;

               6.

               Failure to make further relevant enquiries;

               7.

               Making a decision without the benefit of sufficient information;

               8.

               Disregarding the principles established by the Court in case C-294/83.


title: Case T-410/09 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 May 2010 — Almamet v Commission (Interim measures — Competition — Commission decision imposing a fine — Bank guarantee — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Financial loss — No exceptional circumstances — No urgency)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/39

         Order of the President of the General Court of 7 May 2010 — Almamet v Commission
   (Case T-410/09 R)
   (Interim measures - Competition - Commission decision imposing a fine - Bank guarantee - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Financial loss - No exceptional circumstances - No urgency)
   2010/C 179/68
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Almamet GmbH Handel mit Spänen und Pulvern aus Metall (Ainring, Germany) (represented by: S. Hautbourg and C. Renner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan, V. Bottka and N. von Lingen, agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for suspension of the operation of the Commission Decision of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-78/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 February 2012 — Еvitа-K EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ , Sofia

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 14 February 2012 — Еvitа-K EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’, Sofia
   (Case C-78/12)
   2012/C 133/30
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Аdministrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Еvitа-K EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’, Sofia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the concept of ‘supply of goods’ within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax in conjunction with Article 345 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, it allows the person to whom a supply is made to acquire the right to dispose of the goods (movable property specified only by type) by acquiring the ownership of those goods from a non owner through bona fide possession acquired for consideration, which is permissible under the national law of the Member State, although it should be borne in mind that, under that law, the right of ownership of such property is transferred by delivery?

               2.

               Does proof of effecting a ‘supply of goods’ within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 with respect to a specific invoice in connection with the exercise of the right under Article 178(a) of the Directive to deduct the tax actually paid and shown in that invoice presuppose that the person to whom the supply is made demonstrates the supplier’s rights of ownership where the supply relates to movable property specified according to its type and under the national law of the Member State the right of ownership of such property is transferred by delivery, although under that law the acquisition of the right of ownership of such property by bona fide possession acquired for consideration from a non owner is also permitted?
               Is a ‘supply of goods’ for the purposes of deduction of input tax within the meaning of the Directive to be regarded as proved where, in the circumstances of the main proceedings, the person to whom the supply is made has effected a subsequent supply of the same goods (animals subject to compulsory identification) by exportation with the submission of a customs declaration and there is no evidence of rights of third parties in those goods?

               3.

               For the purposes of demonstrating that a ‘supply of goods’ within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 2006/112 has been effected with respect to a specific invoice in connection with the exercise of the right under Article 178(a) of the Directive to deduct the tax actually paid and shown in that invoice, must it be assumed that the supplier and the person to whom the supply is made, who are not agricultural producers, are acting in bad faith where, on receipt of the goods, no document mentioning the animals’ ear tags in accordance with the requirements of European Union veterinary legislation was provided by the previous owner, and the animals’ ear tags are not mentioned in the veterinary certificate which was issued by an administrative authority and which accompanies the animals during transport in order to effect the specific supply?
               Where the supplier and the person to whom the supply is made have independently made lists of the ear tags, must it then be assumed that they have complied with the requirements of that European Union veterinary legislation if the administrative authority has not shown the animals’ ear tags in the veterinary certificate which accompanies the animals during their shipment?

               4.

               Are the supplier and the person to whom the supply is made in the main proceedings, who are not agricultural producers, required under Article 242 of Directive 2006/112 to show the goods supplied (animals subject to compulsory identification or ‘biological assets’) in their accounts pursuant to International Accounting Standard 41, Agriculture, and to prove control of the assets in accordance with that standard?

               5.

               Does Article 226(6) of Directive 2006/112 require the ear tags of the animals, which are subject to compulsory identification under the European Union veterinary legislation and are the goods supplied, also to be shown in VAT invoices such as those at issue in the main proceedings where the national law of the Member State does not expressly lay down such a requirement for the transfer of the right of ownership of such animals and the persons involved in the supply are not agricultural producers?

               6.

               Is it permissible under Article 185(1) of Directive 2006/112, on the basis of a national provision such as that in the main proceedings, to adjust the deduction of input tax on account of the conclusion that the supplier’s right of ownership of the goods which are the content of the supply was not proved, where the supply was not cancelled by any of the persons involved in it, the person to whom the supply was made effected a subsequent supply of the same goods, there is no evidence of rights claimed by third parties in those goods (animals subject to compulsory identification), no bad faith on the part of the person to whom the supply was made is alleged and under the law of the Member State the right of ownership of such goods specified only according to their type is transferred by delivery?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-211/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 9 May 2011 — État belge v Maison Patrice Alard sprl

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium) lodged on 9 May 2011 — État belge v Maison Patrice Alard sprl
   (Case C-211/11)
   2011/C 211/29
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: État belge

      Defendant: Maison Patrice Alard sprl

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 6(2)(a) and 13B(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1) to be interpreted as precluding the private use by the mangers, administrators or members and their families of a company with legal personality that is liable to tax of all or part of a property forming part of the assets of the company and thus treated as forming, in its entirety, part of the assets of the business, from being treated as an exempt supply of services, on the basis that it constitutes a leasing or letting of immovable property within the meaning of Article 13B(b), where there is no provision for payment of rent in money as consideration for that use, which amounts to a benefit in kind that is taxed as such for the purpose of the managers’ income tax and such use is therefore regarded for tax purposes as the consideration for a proportion of the work performed by the managers, administrators or members?

               2.

               Are those provisions to be interpreted as meaning that that exemption applies in such circumstances where the company fails to prove that there is an essential link between the operation of the business and the making available of all or part of the property to the managers, administrators or members and, if so, is an indirect link sufficient?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-570/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 November 2015 — X, Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 5 November 2015 — X, Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-570/15)
   (2016/C 038/38)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X

      Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Question referred

   What standard or standards should be used to assess what legislation is designated by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) as applicable in the case of a worker residing in Belgium who performs the bulk of his work for his Dutch employer in the Netherlands, and in addition performs 6,5 per cent of that work in Belgium in the year in question, at home and with clients, without there being a fixed pattern and without any agreement having been made with his employer with regard to the performance of work in Belgium?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2).


title: Case F-123/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — GY v Commission (Civil service — Open Competition — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/293/14 — Insufficient number of points in the ‘Talent Screen Test’ — Non-admission to the assessment centre — Rejection of the request for review)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/35

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2016 — GY v Commission
      (Case F-123/15) (1)

      ((Civil service - Open Competition - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/293/14 - Insufficient number of points in the ‘Talent Screen Test’ - Non-admission to the assessment centre - Rejection of the request for review))
      (2016/C 364/42)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: GY (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition EPSO/AD/293/14 not to award the applicant a sufficient number of points for admission to the assessment centre.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Annuls the decision of 11 June 2015 by which the selection board of Open Competition EPSO/AD/293/14 refused to admit GY to the selection tests organised at the assessment centre;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by GY.

         (1)  OJ C 398, 30/11/2015, p. 79.


title: Appeal brought on 4 December 1996 by Compagnie Continentale (France) against the judgment delivered on 24 September 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-494/93 between Compagnie Continentale (France) and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-391/96 P)

text:
No C 40/ 12            1 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          8 . 2 . 97
      automatically and without the institution of default               The applicant claims that the Court should :
     proceedings, begins to accrue as soon as the statutory
      time-limit for reimbursement has expired ?
                                                                         — declare that, by failing to adopt all the necessary
                                                                               measures to ensure the correct transposition of
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 2 .                                       Council Directive 85/337/EEC (') of 27 June 1985 on
                                                                               the assessment of the effects of certain public and
                                                                               private projects on the environment, Ireland has failed
                                                                               to fulfil its obligations under that Directive and in
                                                                               particular Article 12 thereof and under the Treaty,
Appeal brought on 4 December 1996 by Compagnie
                                                                         — order Ireland to pay the costs .
Continentale (France) against the judgment delivered on
24 September 1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
494/93 between Compagnie Continentale (France ) and the
          Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         Article 4 (2) of the Directive and Annex II
                         ( Case C-391 /96 P
                              ( 97/C 40/24 )                             In establishing criteria/thresholds for determining whether
                                                                         or not an environmental impact assessment ('EIA') is
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September                 required for an individual project in project classes
                                                                         Annex II . 1 ( b ) ('projects for the use of uncultivated land
1996 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         or semi-natural areas for intensive agriculture'), Annex
of the European Communities in Case T-494/93 between
                                                                         II . 2 ( a ) (' extration of peat') and Annex II . 1 ( d ) (' initial
Compagnie Continentale ( France ) and the Commission of
the European Communities was brought before the Court                    afforestation where this may lead to adverse ecological
                                                                         changes and land reclamation for the purposes of
of Justice of the European Communities on 4 December
                                                                         conversion to another type of land use '), there is a
1996 by Compagnie Continentale ( France ), represented by
                                                                         particular need to ensure that areas of importance for
Patrick Chabrier, of 15 Rue Toepffer, Geneva .
                                                                         nature conservation are satisfactorily taken into account .
                                                                         The Commission would contend that, globally considered,
The appellant claims that the Court should :                             the Irish system of thresholds for these project classes does
                                                                         not satisfactorily take such areas into account for a
— set aside the judgment of 24 September 1996 declaring                  number of reasons .
      Compagnie Continentale's action for annullment of
      the Commission's decision of 1 April 1992                          First, the thresholds draw no distinction between areas
      inadmissible ,
                                                                         which have recognized importance and value for nature
                                                                         conservation and areas which do not .
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                         Second, the thresholds do not take account of the fact that
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      areas of importance and value for nature conservation will
                                                                         often be relatively small in relation to the thresholds .
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
those in Case C-386/96 P (').
                                                                         Third, the thresholds do not take into account the absence
                                                                         in Ireland of other mechanisms which might obviate the
 (') See p. 10 of this Official Journal .                                need for an EIA .
                                                                         Fourth, the thresholds fail to take any or any adequate
                                                                          account of the fact that, incrementally or cumulatively,
                                                                         projects of these classes may create significant
                                                                         environmental effects .
Action brought on 5 December 1996 by the Commission
         of the European Communities against Ireland
                           ( Case C-392/96 )                              Article 2 (3): Exemptions
                               ( 97/C 40/25 )
                                                                          Irish legislation provides for an exemption formula
                                                                          entitling the Minister with powers under the relevant
 An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                enactment to dispense with the requirement of an EIA
Justice of the European Communities on 5 December                         where he is satisfied that this is warranted by exceptional
 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      circumstances . This exemption formula does not oblige
 represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, principal legal                    the Minister concerned to consider whether another form
 adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                 of assessment would be appropriate and whether the
 Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                  information thus collected should be made available to the
 member of the Legal Service , Centre Wagner.                             public, as stipulated under Article 2 ( 3 ) ( a ) and ( b ) of the


title: Case C-435/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2016 — Acacia Srl and Rolando D’Amato v Dr.Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 August 2016 — Acacia Srl and Rolando D’Amato v Dr.Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG
   (Case C-435/16)
   (2016/C 419/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants on a point of law: Acacia Srl, Rolando D’Amato

      Respondent on a point of law: Dr.Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the application of the bar to protection as provided for in Article 110(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 (1) limited to fixed shape parts, namely those parts whose shape is in principle immutably determined by the appearance of the product as a whole and cannot therefore be freely selected by the customer, such as rims for motor vehicles?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
               Is the application of the bar to protection as provided for in Article 110(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 limited only to the supply of products of an identical design, which thus correspond also in colour and size to the original products?

               3.

               If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
               Does the bar to protection as provided for in Article 110(1) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 apply in favour of the supplier of a product that fundamentally infringes the design at issue only if this supplier objectively ensures that his product can be purchased exclusively for repair purposes and not for other purposes as well, such as the upgrading or customisation of the product as a whole?

               4.

               If Question 3 is answered in the affirmative:
               Which measures must the supplier of a product that fundamentally infringes the design at issue take in order to objectively ensure that his product can be purchased exclusively for repair purposes and not for other purposes as well, such as the upgrading or customisation of the product as a whole? Is it enough:

                           (a)

                           that the supplier includes a note in the sales brochure to the effect that any sale takes place exclusively for repair purposes so as to restore the original appearance of the product as a whole; or

                           (b)

                           is it necessary that the supplier make delivery conditional on the customer (traders and consumers) declaring in writing that the product supplied is to be used for repair purposes only?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 4 March 2004 In Case C-344/01: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   4 March 2004
   In Case C-344/01: Federal Republic of Germany v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Suckler cow premium - Checks carried out by the Commission in certain Länder - Extrapolation of findings to other Länder - Burden of proof - Duty of cooperation in good faith)
   (2004/C 94/06)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-344/01: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma) against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Niejahr), with an address for service in Luxembourg: APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2001/557/EC of 11 July 2001excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2001 L 200, p. 28), in so far as it makes financial corrections in respect of suckler cow premiums granted in 1995 and 1996, which correspond to the 1996 and 1997 financial years, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas and A. La Pergola, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Case T-84/05: Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Nicole Schmit against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/38

         Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Nicole Schmit against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-84/05)
   (2005/C 106/77)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 February 2005 by Nicole Schmit, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the production of all files concerning the applicant and sealed by OLAF;

               —

               order the production of the report which concludes the internal investigation into the applicant;

               —

               annul the investigation into the applicant;

               —

               annul the Note from OLAF containing ‘notification of the investigation and the information of the Italian judicial authorities’;

               —

               annul the investigation report sent to the Italian judicial authorities;

               —

               annul any measure arising from and/or relating to those decisions which may be taken subsequently to the bringing of this action;

               —

               order OLAF and the Commission to pay damages, assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 30 000, subject to increase and/or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

               —

               in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her action, the applicant puts forward pleas identical to those put forward by the applicants in Case T-22/05.


title: Case C-411/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Constitutional Court, Belgium) lodged on 7 July 2017 — Inter-Environnement Wallonie asbl, Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen vzw v Conseil des ministres

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Constitutional Court, Belgium) lodged on 7 July 2017 — Inter-Environnement Wallonie asbl, Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen vzw v Conseil des ministres
   (Case C-411/17)
   (2017/C 300/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Inter-Environnement Wallonie asbl, Bond Beter Leefmilieu Vlaanderen vzw

      Defendant: Conseil des ministres

      Intervener: Electrabel SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 2(1) to (3), (6) and (7), Article 3(8), Article 5 and Article 6(1) of the Espoo Convention ‘on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context’, and point 2 of Appendix I to that convention, be interpreted in accordance with the explanations provided in the information document on the Application of the Convention to nuclear-energy related activities and the Good practice recommendations on the application of the Convention to nuclear-energy related activities?

               2.

               May Article 1(ix) of the Espoo Convention, which defines the ‘competent authority’, be interpreted as excluding from the scope of that Convention legislative acts such as the Law of 28 June 2015‘amending the Law of 31 January 2003 on the phasing out of nuclear energy for the purposes of the industrial production of electricity in order to ensure the security of the energy supply’, having regard in particular to the various assessments and hearings carried out in connection with the adoption of that law?

               3.

                           (a)

                           Must Articles 2 to 6 of the Espoo Convention be interpreted as applying prior to the adoption of a legislative act such as the Law of 28 June 2015 amending the Law of 31 January 2003 on the phasing out of nuclear energy for the purposes of the industrial production of electricity in order to ensure the security of the energy supply’, Article 2 of which postpones the date of deactivation and of the end of the industrial production of electricity of the Doel 1 and Doel 2 nuclear power stations?

                           (b)

                           Does the answer to the question in point (a) differ depending on whether it relates to the Doel 1 or the Doel 2 power station, having regard to the need, in the case of the former power station, to adopt administrative acts implementing the abovementioned Law of 28 June 2015?

                           (c)

                           May the security of the country’s electricity supply constitute an overriding reason of public interest permitting a derogation from the application of Articles 2 to 6 of the Espoo Convention or suspension of the application of those provisions?

               4.

               Must Article 2(2) of the Aarhus Convention on ‘access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters’ be interpreted as excluding from the scope of that convention legislative acts such as the Law of 28 June 2015‘amending the Law of 31 January 2003 on the phasing out of nuclear energy for the purposes of the industrial production of electricity in order to ensure the security of the energy supply’, irrespective of whether the various assessments and hearings carried out in connection with the adoption of that law are taken into account?

               5.

                           (a)

                           Having regard in particular to the ‘Maastricht Recommendations on Promoting Effective Public Participation in Decision-making in Environmental Matters’ with respect to multi-stage decision-making, must Articles 2 and 6 of the Aarhus Convention, in conjunction with Annex I.I to that Convention, be interpreted as applying prior to the adoption of a legislative act such as the Law of 28 June 2015‘amending the Law of 31 January 2003 on the phasing out of nuclear energy for the purposes of the industrial production of electricity in order to ensure the security of the energy supply’, Article 2 of which postpones the date of deactivation and of the end of the industrial production of electricity of the Doel 1 and Doel 2 nuclear power stations?

                           (b)

                           Does the answer to the question in point (a) differ depending on whether it relates to the Doel 1 or the Doel 2 power station, having regard to the need, in the case of the former power station, to adopt administrative acts implementing the abovementioned Law of 28 June 2015?

                           (c)

                           May the security of the country’s electricity supply constitute an overriding ground of public interest permitting a derogation from the application of Articles 2 and 6 of the Aarhus Convention or suspension of the application of those provisions?

               6.

                           (a)

                           Must Article 1(2) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, in conjunction with point 13(a) of Annex II to that directive, read, where appropriate, in the light of the Espoo and Aarhus Conventions, be interpreted as applying to the postponement of the date of deactivation and of the end of the industrial production of electricity of a nuclear power station, entailing, as in this instance, significant investments and security upgrades for the Doel 1 and 2 nuclear power stations?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to the question in point (a) is in the affirmative, must Articles 2 to 8 and 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU and Annexes I, II and III to that directive be interpreted as applying prior to the adoption of a legislative act such as the Law of 28 June 2015‘amending the Law of 31 January 2003 on the phasing out of nuclear energy for the purposes of the industrial production of electricity in order to ensure the security of the energy supply’, Article 2 of which postpones the date of deactivation and the end of the industrial production of electricity of the Doel 1 and Doel 2 nuclear power stations?

                           (c)

                           Does the answer to the questions in points (a) and (b) differ depending on whether it relates to the Doel 1 or the Doel 2 power station, having regard to the need, in the case of the former power station, to adopt administrative acts implementing the abovementioned Law of 28 June 2015?

                           (d)

                           If the answer to the question set out in point (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 2(4) of Directive 2011/92/EU be interpreted as permitting an exemption for the postponement of the deactivation of a nuclear power station from the application of Articles 2 to 8 and 11 of Directive 2011/92/EU for overriding reasons of public interest linked with the security of the country’s electricity supply?

               7.

               Must the concept of ‘specific act of national legislation’ within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Directive 2011/92/EU be interpreted as excluding from the scope of that directive a legislative act such as the Law of 28 June 2015‘amending the Law of 31 January 2003 on the phasing out of nuclear energy for the purposes of the industrial production of electricity in order to ensure the security of the energy supply’, having regard to the various assessments and hearings carried out in connection with the adoption of that law, which might attain the objectives of that directive?

               8.

                           (a)

                           Must Article 6 of the Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds, read, where appropriate, in the light of Directive 2011/92/EU and the Espoo and Aarhus Conventions, be interpreted as applying to the postponement of the date of deactivation and of the end of the industrial production of electricity of a nuclear power station, entailing, as in this instance, significant investments and security upgrades for the Doel 1 and 2 nuclear power stations?

                           (b)

                           If the answer to the question in point (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 6(3) of the Directive 92/43/EEC be interpreted as applying prior to the adoption of a legislative act such as the Law of 28 June 2015‘amending the Law of 31 January 2003 on the phasing out of nuclear energy for the purposes of the industrial production of electricity in order to ensure the security of the energy supply’, Article 2 of which postpones the date of deactivation and of the end of the industrial production of electricity of the Doel 1 and Doel 2 nuclear power stations?

                           (c)

                           Does the answer to the questions in points (a) and (b) differ depending on whether it relates to the Doel 1 or the Doel 2 power station, having regard to the need, in the case of the former power station, to adopt administrative acts implementing the abovementioned Law of 28 June 2015?

                           (d)

                           If the answer to the question in point (a) is in the affirmative, must Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC be interpreted as allowing grounds linked with the security of the country’s electricity supply to be considered an imperative reason of overriding public interest, having regard in particular to the various assessments and hearings carried out in the context of the adoption of the abovementioned Law of 28 June 2015, which might be capable of attaining the objectives of that directive?

               9.

               If, on the basis of the answers to the preceding questions, the national court should conclude that the contested law fails to fulfil one of the obligations arising under the abovementioned conventions or directives, and the security of the country’s electricity supply cannot constitute an imperative reason of overriding public interest permitting a derogation from those obligations, might the national court maintain the effects of the Law of 28 June 2015 in order to avoid legal uncertainty and to allow the environmental impact assessment and public participation obligations arising under those conventions or directives to be fulfilled?


title: Case C-108/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage by order of that court of 27 January 2005 in Bovemij Verzekeringen N.V. v Benelux-Merkenbureau

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage by order of that court of 27 January 2005 in Bovemij Verzekeringen N.V. v Benelux-Merkenbureau
   (Case C-108/05)
   (2005/C 115/22)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te 's-Gravenhage (Netherlands) of 27 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Bovemij Verzekeringen N.V. and Benelux-Merkenbureau on the following questions:

               (1)

               [Omissis: question submitted to the Benelux Court of Justice]

               (2

               Must Article 3(3) of the Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that in order to acquire distinctive character (in the present case through a Benelux trade mark) as a result of use, as referred to in that provision, it is necessary that the sign be regarded as a trade mark, before the date of application, by the relevant public throughout the Benelux territory and, therefore, in Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg?
               If the answer to question 2 is in the negative:

               (3)

               Is the condition for registration laid down in Article 3(3) of the Directive satisfied, for the purposes of that provision, if the sign, as result of the use made of it, is regarded as a trade mark by the relevant section of the public in a substantial part of the Benelux territory and can this substantial part be, for example, the Netherlands alone?

               (4)

               When assessing distinctive character acquired through use, within the meaning of Article 3(3) of the Directive, of a sign — consisting of one or more words of an official language in the territory of a Member State (or, as in the case in point, the Benelux territory) — is it necessary to take into account the language regions within that territory?
               For registration as a mark, should the other requirements for registration be satisfied, is it sufficient if/required that the sign be regarded as a trade mark by the relevant section of the public in a substantial part of the language region of the Member State (or, as in the case in point, of the Benelux territory) in which that language is an official language?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21.12.1988 (OJ 1989, L 40, p. 1).


title: Case C-179/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 — Dler Jamal v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 29 April 2008 — Dler Jamal v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-179/08)
   (2008/C 197/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dler Jamal

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 11(1)(e) of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that — apart from the second clause of Article 1(C)(5) of the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees (Geneva Convention on Refugees) — refugee status ceases to exist if the refugee's well-founded fear of persecution within the terms of Article 2(c) of that directive, on the basis of which refugee status was granted, no longer exists and he also has no other reason to fear persecution within the terms of Article 2(c) of Directive 2004/83?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the negative: does the cessation of refugee status under Article 11(1)(e) of Directive 2004/83 also require that, in the country of the refugee's nationality,

                           (a)

                           an actor of protection within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/83 be present, and is it sufficient in that regard if protection can be assured only with the help of multinational troops,

                           (b)

                           the refugee should not be threatened with serious harm, within the meaning of Article 15 of Directive 2004/83, which leads to the granting of subsidiary protection under Article 18 of that directive, and/or

                           (c)

                           the security situation be stable and the general living conditions ensure a minimum standard of living?

               3.

               In a situation in which the previous circumstances, on the basis of which the person concerned was granted refugee status, have ceased to exist, are new, different circumstances founding persecution to be

                           (a)

                           measured against the standard of probability applied for recognising refugee status, or is another standard to be applied in favour of the person concerned, and/or

                           (b)

                           assessed having regard to the relaxation of the burden of proof under Article 4(4) of Directive 2004/83?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 23 January 1997 in Case C-171/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht): Recep Tetik v. Land Berlin joined party: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Decision of the Council of Association - Free movement of workers - Extension of a residence permit - Voluntary termination of a contract of employment)

text:
No C 74/6              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8 . 3 . 97
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                                      ( Sixth Chamber)
                       of 23 January 1997
                                                                                of 23 January 1997
in Case C-171/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ): Recep Tetik v. Land Berlin              in Case C-181/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
joined party: Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungs                  the Tribunal de commerce de Nivelles ): Biogen Inc. v.
                               gericht ( ] )                                        Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA (')
(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the                     (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Supplementary
Council of Association — Free movement of workers —
                                                                        protection certificate for medicinal products — Refusal by
Extension of a residence permit — Voluntary termination                 the holder of the marketing authorization to provide a
                of a contract of employment)                                       copy to the applicant for the certificate)
                            ( 97/C 74/ 10 )
                                                                                97/C 74/ 11 )
               (Language of the case: German)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                          (Language of the case: French)
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-171 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
( Federal Administrative Court, Germany ) for a                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                         published in the European Court Reports)
court between Recep Tetik and Land Berlin, joined party:
Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht — on
the interpretation of the third indent of Article 6 ( 1 ) of
Decision No      1 /80 of the Council of Association of                 In Case C-181 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
19 September 1980 on the development of the Association                 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de commerce de Nivel
between the European Economic Community and Turkey                      les ( Belgium ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
— the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F.                       pending before that court between Biogen Inc . and
Mancini, President of the Chamber ( Rapporteur), J. L.                  Smithkline Beecham Biologicals SA — on the
Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.                         interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1768/92 of
Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A.                 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary
Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            protection certificate for medicinal products ( OJ No L 182,
a judgment on 23 January 1977, in which it has ruled as                 2 . 7. 1992, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed
follows :                                                               of J. L. Murray, President of the Fourth Chamber acting
                                                                        as President of the Sixth Chamber: C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.
                                                                        Kapteyn, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm,
The third indent of Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of
                                                                        Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl,
the Council of Association of 19 September 1980 on the
development of the Association between the European                     Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                        judgment on 23 January 1997, in which it has ruled :
Economic Community and Turkey must be interpreted as
meaning that a Turkish worker who has been legally
employed for more than four years in a Member State,
who decides voluntarily to leave his employment in order                1 . Where a medicinal product is covered by several basic
to seek new work in the same Member State and is unable
                                                                            *patents, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of
immediately to enter into a new employment relationship,                     18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a
enjoys in that State, for a reasonable period, a right of                    supplementary protection certificate for medicinal
residence for the purpose of seeking new paid employment                     products does not preclude the grant of a
there, provided that he continues to be duly registered                      supplementary protection certificate to each holder of
as belonging to the labour force of the Member                               a basic patent.
State concerned, complying where appropriate with the
requirements of the legislation in force in that State, for
instance by registering as a person seeking employment
and making himself available to the employment                          2 . Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 does not require the
authorities. It is for the Member State concerned and, in                    holder of the marketing authorization to provide the
the absence of legislation to that end, for the national                     patent holder with a copy of that authorization,
court before which the matter has been brought to fix                        referred to in Article 8 (1 ) (b) of the Regulation.
such a reasonable period, which must, however, be
sufficient not to jeopardize in fact the prospects of his
finding new employment.
                                                                        3 . Where the basic patent and the authorization to place
(') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                            the product on the market as a medicinal product are
                                                                             held by different persons and the patent holder is
                                                                             unable to provide a copy of that authorization in


title: Case T-51/06: Action brought on  21 February 2006  — Fardem Packaging v Commission

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/18

         Action brought on 21 February 2006 — Fardem Packaging v Commission
   (Case T-51/06)
   (2006/C 96/34)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Fardem Packaging B.V. (Edam, Netherlands) (represented by: F.J. Leeflang, lawyer)

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

               —

               set aside in whole or in part the decision addressed to Fardem;

               —

               reduce the fine imposed on Fardem;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging the Commission decision of 30 November 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags), in which the applicant was held to be jointly and severally liable in respect of its participation in a cartel and ordered to pay a fine.
   In support of its action the applicant alleges breach of Article 81 EC, Article 253 EC, and Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, as well as infringement of the principle of care, the principle that reasons must be given, and the principle of equal treatment.
   The applicant first submits that the Commission has misunderstood the applicant's defence with regard to its conduct both before and after 1997. While the applicant does not deny that it took part in the cartel, it points out that, prior to 1997, it was entirely dependent on its then parent company. After 1997, however, it was independent and its intentions altered gradually but fundamentally.
   The applicant goes on to submit that the Commission proceeds on the basis of an erroneous appraisal of the facts with regard to the applicant's participation in the ‘Valveplast’, ‘Benelux’ and ‘Teppema’ groups, as also with regard to its participation in the ‘Belgium’ and ‘Block Bags’ groups. The applicant claims that the Commission accepted a number of conclusions which were negligent and inaccurate in regard to several forms of conduct. The applicant also points out that the Commission failed to take any account of the fact that the ‘Belgium’ and ‘Block Bags’ groups were terminated prior to 1997.
   Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the Commission erred in its appraisal of the facts relating to the determination of geographical markets. The applicant points out in this regard that it has no turnover in Spain and only a minimal turnover in France.
   The applicant also criticises the Commission on the ground that it did not apply the leniency notice to the applicant and that it failed to treat certain facts indicated by the applicant as amounting to mitigating circumstances.
   With regard to the determination of the basic amount of the fine, the applicant disputes that the individual market shares were determined on the basis of turnover achieved instead of tonnage, the application of differentiated treatment in categories on the basis of market share and the expression of that differentiation in categories, as well as the application of the basic amount of the fine to each category as determined.
   The applicant concludes that the Commission was wrong to decide that the applicant and Kendrion N.V. constituted an economic unit, on which ground Kendrion was unjustly fined as a result of a breach committed by the applicant.


title: Case T-476/16: Order of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Adama Agriculture and Adama France v Commission

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/33

         Order of the General Court of 2 February 2017 — Adama Agriculture and Adama France v Commission
   (Case T-476/16) (1)

   (2017/C 086/43)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 402, 31.10.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-363/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main): Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH v Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Air transport — Access to the groundhandling market in Community airports — Directive 96/67/EC — Article 16 — Collection of a fee for access to airport installations — Conditions)

text:
10.1.2004               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                     C 7/13
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                               (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                       of 6 November 2003
                                                                             in Case C-363/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-358/01: Commission of the European Communi-                        the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main): Flughafen
                   ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                               Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH v Deutsche Lufthansa
                                                                                AG (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 28
EC — Prohibition on marketing under the name ‘limpiador                      (Air transport — Access to the groundhandling market in
con lejía’ (‘cleaner with bleach’) of goods lawfully manufac-                Community airports — Directive 96/67/EC — Article 16 —
tured and marketed in other Member States where their                        Collection of a fee for access to airport installations —
           active chlorine content is less than 35 g/l)                                                    Conditions)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/21)
                           (2004/C 7/20)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-363/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                             by the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) for a
In Case C-358/01, Commission of the European Communities                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
(Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz                court between Flughafen Hannover-Langenhagen GmbH and
Abad): Application for a declaration that, by refusing access to             Deutsche Lufthansa AG on the interpretation of Article 16(3)
the Spanish market under the name of ‘limpiador con lejía’                   of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access
(‘cleaner with bleach’) or similar to products lawfully manufac-             to the groundhandling market at Community airports (OJ
tured and marketed in other Member States where their active                 1996 L 272, p. 36), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
chlorine content is less than 35 grams per litre, the Kingdom                J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC,           V. Skouris, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward                        Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
(Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
A. La Pergola and P. Jann, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;               16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 November
2003, in which it:
                                                                             Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to
                                                                             the groundhandling market at Community airports, in particular
                                                                             Article 16(3) thereof, precludes the managing body of an airport
1.    Declares that, by refusing access to the Spanish market under
                                                                             from making access to the groundhandling market in the airport
      the name of ‘limpiador con lejía’ (cleaner with bleach) or similar
                                                                             subject to payment by a supplier of groundhandling services or self-
      to products lawfully manufactured and marketed in other
                                                                             handler of an access fee as consideration for the grant of a commercial
      Member States where their active chlorine content is less than
                                                                             opportunity, in addition to the fee payable by that supplier or self-
      35 grams per litre, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             handler for the use of the airport installations. On the other hand,
      obligations under Article 28 EC.
                                                                             that body is entitled to collect a fee for the use of airport installations,
                                                                             of an amount, to be determined according to the criteria laid down in
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                          Article 16(3) of the Directive, which takes account of the interest of
                                                                             that body in making a profit.
(1) OJ C 303 of 27.10.2001.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 20 March 2002 in Case T-17/99: KE KELIT Kunststoffwerk GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Fine — Equal treatment — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Non-retroactivity)

text:
C 144/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.6.2002
2.    Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those of      2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
      the applicant;
3.    Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.                   (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                20 March 2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               in Case T-23/99: LR AF 1998 A/S v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                          20 March 2002                                   (Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
                                                                          Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) —
                                                                          Continuous infringement — Boycott — Access to the file —
in Case T-17/99: KE KELIT Kunststoffwerk GmbH v                           Fine — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Non-
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                                     retroactivity — Legitimate expectations)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/77)
(Competition — Cartel — District heating pipes —
Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Fine —
Equal treatment — Guidelines on the method of setting fines                                  (Language of the case: English)
                      — Non-retroactivity)
                         (2002/C 144/76)                                  In Case T-23/99, LR af 1998 A/S (formerly Løgstør Rør A/S),
                                                                          established in Løgstør (Denmark), represented by D. Wael-
                                                                          broeck and H. Peytz, lawyers, with an address for service in
                   (Language of the case: German)                         Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          (Agents: P. Olivier and E. Gippini Fournier): Application for,
                                                                          primarily, annulment of Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of
                                                                          21 October 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
                                                                          the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe
                                                                          Cartel) (OJ 1999 L 24, p. 1) or, in the alternative, reduction of
In Case T-17/99, KE KELIT Kunststoffwerk GmbH, established                the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision, the Court
in Linz (Austria), represented by G. Grassner and W. Löbl,                of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-                President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; G. Herzig,
mission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Mölls and                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
E. Gippini Fournier): Application for, primarily, annulment of            20 March 2002, in which it has ruled:
Commission Decision 1999/60/EC of 21 October 1998
relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty
(Case No IV/35.691/E-4: — Pre-Insulated Pipe Cartel) (OJ                  1.    Dismisses the application;
1999 L 24, p. 1) or, in the alternative, reduction of the fine
imposed on the applicant by that decision, the Court of
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Mengozzi,                2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
President, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; G. Herzig,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 March 2002, in which it:                                               (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
1.    Dismisses the application;


title: Case T-207/99: Action brought on 15 September 1999 by the Asociación de Fruticultores del Jalón Medio against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 333/34                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.11.1999
concerning the acquisition of television rights to sports events          The applicant claims that the Court should annul Decision
within the framework of Eurovision and contractual access to              C(1999) 1501 adopted by the Commission of the European
such programmes for third parties. According to the applicant,            Communities on 18 June 1999.
it is precisely on account of the persistent desire manifested by
the EBU, in the absence of the exemption previously enjoyed
by it, to deprive the applicant of the benefit of the rights held         Pleas in law and main arguments
by it by invoking, in opposition to its membership application,
criteria in its Statutes which contravene Article 81(1) EC, that          In the present proceedings, the applicant association contests
the applicant decided to refer the matter to the Commission.              Commission Decision C(1999) 1501 of 4 June 1999 in so far
                                                                          as it cancers the assistance granted to it, at the material time,
                                                                          by Commission Decision C(93) 3393 of 26 November 1993,
In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that:
                                                                          as amended by Decision C(96) 1603 of 18 July 1996,
— its complaint was based not on the EBU’s refusal to admit               concerning aid granted by the EAGGF Guidance Section
     it to membership but on the persistent attempts by the               pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 in connec-
     EBU to oppose its membership application by invoking                 tion with Project No 93.ES.06.028, entitled ‘Pilot project
                                                                          demonstrating innovative systems for improving the quality
     the anti-competitive criteria contained in its Statutes as a
                                                                          of fruit production in the Jalón Medio region (Zaragoza,
      ground for refusing to sell to it the rights held by it;
                                                                          Aragon, Spain) and adapting it to the market’.
— contrary to the Commission’s assertions, the Court of First
      Instance ruled in its aforementioned judgment on the                In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward the
      applicability of Article 81(1) of the Treaty to the rules           following arguments:
      governing admission to membership of the EBU, stating
                                                                          — Breach of the guarantees laid down in relation to proceed-
      that those rules to some extent distort competition vis-à-vis
                                                                               ings involving the hearing of both parties which may lead
      purely commercial charnels which are not admitted as
                                                                               to the imposition of a penalty. It maintains in that regard,
      members;
                                                                               first, that the contested decision does not indicate the
— whilst it is true that the Commission is not obliged to                      forum before which appeal proceedings may be brought,
      express a view on every argument contained in the                        nor whether that forum is a judicial body, nor the
      complaint, it has committed an error of assessment                       time-limit prescribed for bringing such an appeal. Second,
      rendering its decision liable to be annulled, by failing to              it asserts that the defendant institution has failed to adhere
      rule on the discrimination suffered by M6 as a result of the             to the principle that an investigation must be carried out,
      participation of CANAL + in the Eurovision system up                     and a decision reached, within a reasonable time;
      until the 1998 World Cup and the latter’s having been a             — Breach of the principles underlying the common agricul-
      member of the EBU despite never having fulfilled the                     tural policy, particularly as regards technological research
      criteria for admission to membership;                                    and development in that field and the necessary increase
                                                                               in productivity;
— in the present case, the Commission exercised its decision-
      making powers in competition matters not in order to                — Infringement of Articles 15(2), 23(2) and 24 of Council
      ensure that the competition rules were observed in the                   Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 con-
      market for the acquisition of rights to sports events but                cerning the Structural Funds of the Community. It main-
      solely in order to make sure that the complaint in question              tains in that regard that, inasmuch as the decision approv-
      was rejected.                                                            ing the project submitted by the applicant does not
                                                                               expressly prohibit the same, it must be assumed that
                                                                               expenditure incurred in preparing the project and
                                                                               obtaining the assistance are payable in addition to the
                                                                               amount of the aid itself. Second, it argues that no
                                                                               on-the-spot checks of any kind whatever, including sample
                                                                               checks, were carried out in relation to the applicant, as
Action brought on 15 September 1999 by the Asociación                         provided for in the aforesaid Article 23(2). Finally, and
de Fruticultores del Jalón Medio against the Commission                       without any admission by the applicant that it has
                   of the European Communities                                 perpetrated any irregular act of any kind whatsoever, the
                                                                               applicant is unable to understand why the Commission
                                                                               has not reduced the aid by the amount allegedly unused.
                           (Case T-207/99)
                                                                          — Disregard of the spirit and purpose of Council Regulation
                           (1999/C 333/76)                                     (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988 concerning
                                                                               the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund,
                                                                               inasmuch as the provisions contained in the final recital in
                    (Language of the Case: Spanish)                            the preamble thereto and the measures provided for in
                                                                               Article 2(2) thereof have been curtailed by the adoption of
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      the rigorous measure involving the cancellation of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     EAGGF assistance previously granted.
European Communities on 15 September 1999 by the Asocia-
ción de Fruticultores del Jalón Medio, established at La Almunia        The applicant also criticises the fact that the contested decision
de Doña Godina, represented by Javier Mirón Martı́nez and               contains an inadequate statement of reasons.
David Esteban Arregui, of the Zaragoza Bar, with an address
for service at 4 Calle Bolonia, Zaragoza.


title: Case C-441/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — European Commission v Alrosa Company Ltd (Appeals — Dominant position — Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — World market in rough diamonds — Individual commitments by a company to cease purchasing rough diamonds from another company — Decision making a company’s individual commitments binding and terminating the proceedings)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2010 — European Commission v Alrosa Company Ltd
   (Case C-441/07 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Dominant position - Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - World market in rough diamonds - Individual commitments by a company to cease purchasing rough diamonds from another company - Decision making a company’s individual commitments binding and terminating the proceedings)
   2010/C 234/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Alrosa Company Ltd (represented by: R. Subiotto QC, K. Jones, solicitor-advocate, and S. Mobley, solicitor)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 July 2007 in Case T-170/06 Alrosa v Commission, annulling Decision 2006/520/EC of 22 February 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 82 EC and 54 EEA (Case COMP/B-2/38.381 — De Beers), making binding the commitments given by De Beers to bring to an end its purchases of rough diamonds from Alrosa with effect from 2009, after a period of progressive reduction of the amounts purchased by it from 2006 to 2008, and bringing the proceedings to an end in accordance with Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 11 July 2007 in Case T-170/06 Alrosa v Commission;

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by Alrosa Company Ltd before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;

               3.

               Orders Alrosa Company Ltd to pay the costs both of the appeal and of the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.