23.8.2003            EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                      C 200/21
2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                   Furthermore, and in any event, those conditions are dispropor-
                                                                       tionate. Therefore, the need to protect the consumer and fair
                                                                       trading can no longer be relied upon.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Removal from the register of Case C-193/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/37)
Application of the conditions as to ‘similarity’ and being the
same vendor, as referred to by the Belgian Law on commercial           By order of 4 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
practice and consumer information and protection, in so far as         of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
concerns the operation of a customer loyalty scheme as a               register of Case C-193/02: Kingdom of the Netherlands v
cross-border provision of services, produces arbitrary or even         Commission of the European Communities.
discriminatory effects, because the conditions are very widely
avoided in practice by undertakings established in Belgium
having their own distribution network with points of sale.             (1) OJ C 191 of 10.08.2002.


title: Case C-8/16: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Paola Tonachella (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Articles 49 and 56 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — National legislation — Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates — New call for tenders — Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences — Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets — Restriction — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Proportionality)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/13

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 7 April 2016 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Frosinone — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Paola Tonachella
   (Case C-8/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Identical questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Articles 49 and 56 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - National legislation - Reorganisation of the licensing system through the alignment of licence expiry dates - New call for tenders - Licences for a shorter term than that of the former licences - Transfer, free of charge, of the rights to use tangible and intangible assets owned constituting the network for the management and collection of bets - Restriction - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 270/16)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Frosinone

      Criminal proceedings against

   Paola Tonachella

      Operative part of the order

   Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a restrictive national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a licensee of a betting and gambling service to transfer, free of charge, on the cessation of business as a result of the expiry of the final term of the licence, the rights to use tangible and intangible assets which he owns and which constitute his network for the management and collection of bets, in so far as that restriction goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective actually pursued by that provision, which is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case C-477/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — European Commission v Agrofert Holding a.s., Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (Appeal — Access to documents of the institutions — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to merger control proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Refusal of access — Exceptions relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations, commercial interests, legal advice and the decision-making process of the institutions)

text:
               25.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 258/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2012 — European Commission v Agrofert Holding a.s., Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA, Kingdom of Denmark, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-477/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Access to documents of the institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to merger control proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Refusal of access - Exceptions relating to the protection of the purpose of investigations, commercial interests, legal advice and the decision-making process of the institutions)
   2012/C 258/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Costa de Oliveira and V. Bottka, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Agrofert Holding a.s. (represented by: R. Pokorný and D. Šalek, advokáti), Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA (represented by: S. Sołtysiński, K. Michałowska and A. Krasowska Skowrońska, lawyers), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: S. Juul Jørgensen, Agent), Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Petkovska and S. Johannesson, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 7 July 2010 in Case T-111/07 Arofert Holding a.s. v Commission, by which that Court annulled Commission Decision D(2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007, refusing to grant the applicant access to certain unpublished documents relating to a procedure concerning a merger between undertakings (Case COMP/M.3543 — PKN Orlen v Unipetrol)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 7 July 2010 in Case T-111/07 Agrofert Holding v Commission in so far as it annuls Commission Decision D(2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007 refusing access to the documents of Case COMP/M.3543 concerning the merger between Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA and Unipetrol, exchanged between the Commission and the notifying parties and between the Commission and third parties;

               2.

               Annuls paragraph 3 of the operative part of that judgment;

               3.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               4.

               Dismisses the action brought by Agrofert Holding a.s. before the General Court of the European Union seeking the annulment of Commission Decision D(2007) 1360 of 13 February 2007 refusing access to the documents in Case COMP/M.3543 concerning the merger between Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA and Unipetrol, exchanged between the Commission and the notifying parties and between the Commission and the third parties;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission and Agrofert Holding a.s. to bear their own costs both at first instance and in this appeal;

               6.

               Orders Polski Koncern Naftowy Orlen SA and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328 4.12.2010.


title: Action brought on 15 April 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-141/97)

text:
14 . 6 . 97              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 181 /5
     ( b) in view of Austria's accession to the European                 15 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
           Union on 1 January 1995 ?                                     Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, assisted by Claudio Tesauro, of the Naples
                                                                         Bar, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     If Question 3 is to be answered in the negative :                   Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                                                                         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
4. Does the failure to transpose merely Article 7 of the
     Directive within the period fixed in itself constitute a
     sufficiently serious breach of Community law and give               The applicant claims that the Court should:
     rise to a right of reparation on the part of the persons
     injured where the Member State has adopted relevant
                                                                         — declare that, by failing to adopt the provisions
     measures for the transposition of all other provisions                     necessary to comply with Commission Directive
     of the Directive within that period ?                                      94/1 /EC ( 1 ) of 6 January 1994 adapting some
                                                                                technicalities of Council Directive 75/324/EEC ( 2 ) on
5 . Must Article 7 of the Directive be interpreted as                           the approximation of the laws of the Member States
     meaning that its objectives are not achieved where                         relating to aerosol dispensers, the Italian Republic has
     national rules :                                                           failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
     ( a ) require, for the purpose of covering the risk, only           — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
           a contract of insurance or a bank guarantee for a
           sum insured ( insurance cover) of at least 5 % of
           turnover from an organizer's activity as organizer            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
           in the corresponding quarter of the previous
           calendar year,
                                                                         Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
     ( b ) require the organizer, in the first year of his               directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
           activity, to take his estimated turnover from his             upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
           intended activity as organizer as the basis for               Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
           determining the sum insured ( insurance cover ),              down in directives for their transposition . That time-limit
                                                                         expired on 1 October 1994 without the Italian Republic
     ( c ) do not thereby take into consideration increases in           having brought into force the necessary provisions in
           the organizer's turnover during the current year,             order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
           and                                                           Commission 's application .
     ( d ) do not provide for any duty on the Member State               (') OJNoL 23 , 28 . 1 . 1994, p . 28 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 147, 9 . 6 . 1975 , p . 40 .
           to monitor the security required ?
6.   Is there a direct causal link between a failure to
     transpose Article 7 of the Directive on time or
     completely and a loss on the part of the consumer
     which renders the Member State liable to refund the
     unsecured payments in full even where the Member                    Action brought on 15 April 1997 by the Commission of
     State proves that unlawful acts on the part of the                       the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     organizer (a third party ) or a wholly extraordinary or
     unforeseeable      increase   in   the  risk  are  the  cause                                   ( Case C-142/97
     ( essential contributory cause ) of the loss ?                                                    ( 97/C 181 / 10 )
(') OJ No L 158 , 1990, p . 59 .
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         15 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal
                                                                         Adviser, Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, assisted by
                                                                         Claudio Tesauro, of the Naples Bar, acting as Agents, with
Action brought on 15 April 1997 by the Commission of                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic                 Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                          ( Case C-141 /97
                            ( 97/C 181 /09 )                             The applicant claims that the Court should :
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                             or administrative provisions necessary to comply with


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 September 2002 in Case T-182/00 DEP: Marco Pannella v the European Parliament (Taxation of costs)

text:
7.12.2002                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 305/23
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with
                                                                             an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
                        of 24 September 2002                                 European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and
                                                                             H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the
in Case T-113/01: Veronica Sabbag v Commission of the                        decision of the selection board, contained in a letter of 14 July
                      European Communities ( 1)                              2000, refusing to enter the applicant’s name on the reserve list
                                                                             of temporary agents resulting from selection procedure COM/
(Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the                       R/A/01/1999 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list —                     composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and N. Forwood and
Linguistic competence of members of the selection board —                    H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
                         Equality of treatment)                              Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September 2002, in
                                                                             which it:
                            (2002/C 305/49)
                                                                             1.    Annuls the decision of the selection board, contained in the
                      (Language of the case: French)                               letter of 14 July 2000 addressed to the applicant, not to enter
                                                                                the applicant’s name on the reserve list resulting from selection
                                                                                procedure COM/R/A/01/1999;
In Case T-113/01: Veronica Sabbag, residing in Brussels,
represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere, lawyers, with an                    2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the
decision of the selection board, contained in a letter of 14 July
2000, refusing to enter the applicant’s name on the reserve list
of temporary agents resulting from selection procedure COM/
R/A/01/1999 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and N. Forwood and
H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September 2002, in                            ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
which it:
                                                                                of 9 September 2002
1.     Annuls the decision of the selection board, contained in the
       letter of 14 July 2000, not to enter the applicant’s name on the
       reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/           in Case T-182/00 DEP: Marco Pannella v the European
       1999;                                                                                Parliament (1)
2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                                        (Taxation of costs)
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                                                            (2002/C 305/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                             In Case T-182/00 DEP: Marco Pannella, a Member of the
                                                                             European Parliament, residing in Rome, represented by
                        of 24 September 2002                                 P.A.M. Ferrari, lawyer, v European Parliament (Agents:
                                                                             H. Krück and A. Caiola) — application for a taxation of costs
in Case T-182/01: Sophie Bachotet v Commission of the                        following the order of the Court of First Instance of 5 July
                      European Communities ( 1)                              2001 in Case T-182/00 Pannella v Parliament (not published)
                                                                             — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
(Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the                       R.M. Moura Ramos, President, and J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij,
temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list —                     Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 September
                         Equality of treatment)                              2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                            (2002/C 305/50)                                  The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed in respect of fees by
                                                                             the defendant to the applicant is fixed in the sum of 8 000 euros.
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.
In Case T-182/01: Sophie Bachotet, a member of the auxiliary
staff working for the Committee of the Regions, residing in


title: Action brought on 5 July 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-234/95)

text:
2. 9. 95              I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 229/13
      be reutilized may be the subject of a legal transaction or        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
      quoted on public or private commercial lists ?                    Correctionnel, Liege, by judgment of that court of 7 June
                                                                        1995 in criminal proceedings against Bent Erik Carlsen, the
(!) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                               civil party to the proceedings being Georges Vanhalle, in his
( 2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 20 .                            capacity as President of the Association Pharmaceutique
( 3 ) OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                                                Beige
                                                                                Case C-231 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/26 )
References for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Protodikio ( Administrative Court of First Instance ), Athens,          European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal
by a decision of that court of 30 March 1995 in the cases of            Correctionnel ( Criminal Court), Liege, of 7 June 1995 ,
A. Kapasakalis, D. Skiathitis and A. Kouyangas v. Greek                 which was received at the Court Registry on 5 July 1995 , for
                                  State
                                                                        a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Bent
          ( Cases C-225/95 , C-226/95 and C-227/95 )                    Erik Carlsen, the civil party to the proceedings being
                            ( 95/C 229/24 )                             Georges Vanhalle, in his capacity as President of the
                                                                        Association Pharmaceutique Beige, on the following
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  question :
European Communities by decisions of the Administrative
Court of First Instance, Athens, of 30 March 1995 , which               Do the pharmacists' statutory monopoly to supply sterile
were received at the Court Registry on 28 June 1995 , for               articles, and the correspondig prohibition forbidding
a preliminary ruling in the cases of A. Kapasakalis,                    distributors of such articles to sell them directly to doctors,
D. Skiathitis and A. Kouyangas v. Greek State on the                    dentists, veterinary surgeons and midwives or to scientific
following questions :                                                   establishments or hospitals — a prohibition not applying to
                                                                        such sales to private individuals — which are the result of
1 . Does the result to be achieved by Council Directive                 the application of Articles 1 and 44 of the Royal Decree of
      89/48/EEC ( ] ) entail the recognition of rights in favour        6 June 1960 in conjunction with Royal Decree No 78 of
      of the individuals to whom it relates ?                           10 November 1967, constitute a measure having equivalent
                                                                        effect to a quantitative restriction, contrary to Articles 30
2 . Is the content of those rights sufficiently precise to              and 36 of the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957 ?
      enable them to be deduced solely on the basis of the
      framework laid down in the provisions of that
      Directive ?
3 . Is there a causal link between the infringement of the
      obligation flowing from the provisions of Article 12 of           Action brought on 5 July 1995 by the Commission of the
      the Directive by the Greek State and the demage which                 European Communities against the French Republic
      the applicant claims to have suffered ?                                                   ( Case C-234/95 )
(') OJ No L 19 , 24 . 1 . 1989 , p . 16 .                                                          ( 95/C 229/27 )
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 July
                                                                        1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht              represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, acting as
Wiesbaden by order of 18 April 1995 in the case of Simone               Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                   Moll v. Berhane Mesghena                             office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Center,
                          ( Case C-229/95 )                             Kirchberg.
                             ( 95/C 229/25 )
                                                                        The Commission claims that the Court should :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Arbeitsgericht                   1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
 ( Labour Court) Wiesbaden of 18 April 1995 which was                        administrative measures needed to comply with Council
received at the Court Registry on 3 July 1995 , for a                        Directive 92/50/EEC ( J ) relating to the coordination of
preliminary ruling in the case of Simone Moll v. Berhane                     procedures for the award of public service contracts, the
Mesghena on the following question :                                         French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                             that Directive, in particular Article 44 thereof;
 May a cleaning contract relating to specific premises
constitute a part of a business within the meaning of                   2 . in the alternative, declare that in any event, by failing
 Directive 77/187/EEC ( M ?                                                  forthwith to inform the Commission of such measures,
                                                                             the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
 (') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                     under those same provisions;
                                                                         3.  order the French Republic to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 229/ 14             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 9 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                              European Communities against the Italian Republic
The obligatory nature of Article 189 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty                                        Case C-237/95 )
means that Member States must transpose directives into                                              ( 95/C 229/29 )
national law within the period laid down by those directives .
The necessary measures had not been adopted by the French
Republic when the period fixed by Article 44 of Directive               An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
92/50/EEC expired on 1 July 1993 .                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 July
                                                                        1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Laura Pignataro and Maria Condou
f 1 ) OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                        Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                        Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de             — declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
Douai by judgment of 27 January 1995 , rectified by                            obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt or to
judgment of 3 1 May 1 995 , in the case of AGS Assedic Pas de                  communicate the laws, regulations and administrative
Calais against Francois Dumon and Mr Froment, liquidator                       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                 of Etablissements Pierre Gilson                               89/369/EEC ( J ) of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air
                                                                               pollution from new municipal waste-incineration plants
                            Case C-235 /95 )                                   and Council Directive 89/429/EEC ( 2 ) of 21 June 1989
                             ( 95/C 229/28 )                                   on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal
                                                                               waste-incineration plants,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel                  — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
 ( Court of Appeal ), Douai of 27 January 1995 , rectified by
judgment of 31 May 1995 , in the case of AGS Assedic Pasde              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Calais v. Francois Dumon and Mr Froment, liquidator of
Etablissements Pierre Gilson, which was received at the
 Court Registry on the following questions :                            Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
                                                                        is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
                                                                         State to which it is addressed, means that Member States are
 1 . Is Article 4 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of                     under an obligation to comply with the time limits
       20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of              prescribed in directives for their transposition . On the
       the Member States relating to the protection of                   expiry of the relevant prescribed period on 1 December
       employees in the event of the insolvency of their                 1990, the Italian Republic had not adopted the provisions
       employer ( ] ) of general scope and obligatory and must it        necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the
       therefore have direct effect in national law ?                    form of order sought by the Commission .
 2 . In the absence of the Commission's having been                      0 ) OJ No L 163 , 14 . 6 . 1989 , p . 32 .
       informed in accordance with Article 1 1 of the Directive          ( 2 ) OJ No L 203 , 15 . 7. 1989 , p . 50 .
       of 20 October 1980, is Article D. 143-2 of the French
       Code du Travail ( which provides that the maximum
       amount of the guarantee provided for in Article
       L. 143-1 1-8 of the Code du Travail is set at thirteen times
       the monthly ceiling used to calculate contributions to
       the unemployment insurance scheme where the claims
       result from provisions of legislation or regulations or           Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the
       from stipulations of a collective agreement and arose                   European Communities against the Italian Republic
       under a contract of employment which was concluded at
       a date more than six months before the decision
                                                                                ( Case C-238/95 )
       declaring a judicial composition, and that in other cases                                      ( 95/C 229/30 )
       the amount of the guarantee is limited to four times
       the aforementioned ceiling) compatible with that
       Directive ?
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 July
                                                                          1995 by the Commission of the European Communities,
  (') OJ No L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980, p . 23 .                              represented by Laura Pignataro and Maria Condou
                                                                          Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                          Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-80/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2006 — Bavendam and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Decisions 2004/798/EC and 2004/813/EC — List of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region and the Atlantic biogeographical region — Persons directly and individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/48

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 September 2006 — Bavendam and Others v Commission
   (Case T-80/05) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Decisions 2004/798/EC and 2004/813/EC - List of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region and the Atlantic biogeographical region - Persons directly and individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 294/101)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Hinrich Bavendam (Bremen, Germany); Günther Früchtnicht (Bremen); Hinrich Geerken (Bremen); Hans-Jürgen Weyhausen-Brinkmann (Bremen); Curt-Hildebrand von Einsiedel (Leipzig, Germany); Christina Gräfin von Schall-Riaucour (Ahlen-Vorhelm, Germany); Franz-Albert Metternich-Sandor, Prinz von Ratibor und Corvey (Höxter, Germany); Christoph Prinz zu Schleswig-Holstein (Thumby, Germany); and Stadt Schloß Holte-Stukenbrock (Germany) (represented by: T. Giesen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and B. Schima, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/798/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Continental biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 382, p. 1), and Commission Decision 2004/813/EC of 7 December 2004 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region (OJ 2004 L 387, p. 1).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.6.2005.


title: Case T-361/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  30 November 2005  — Vanlangendonck v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Infringement of the competition notice — Equality of treatment)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2005 — Vanlangendonck v Commission
   (Case T-361/03) (1)

   (Officials - Open competition - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Infringement of the competition notice - Equality of treatment)
   (2006/C 36/64)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Philippe Vanlangendonck (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: B. Laurent, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)
   Application for
   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition COM/A/10/01 not to include the applicant on the reserve list of that competition and for damages
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the application;

               2)

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004.


title: Case C-188/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, France) — Commune de Mesquer v Total France SA, Total International Ltd (Directive 75/442/EEC — Waste management — Concept of waste — Polluter pays principle — Holder — Previous holders — Producer of the product from which the waste came — Hydrocarbons and heavy fuel oil — Shipwreck — International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage — International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 June 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation, France) — Commune de Mesquer v Total France SA, Total International Ltd
   (Case C-188/07) (1)

   (Directive 75/442/EEC - Waste management - Concept of waste - ‘Polluter pays’ principle - Holder - Previous holders - Producer of the product from which the waste came - Hydrocarbons and heavy fuel oil - Shipwreck - International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage - International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund)
   (2008/C 209/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de cassation
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commune de Mesquer

      Defendants: Total France SA, Total International Ltd
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and of Category Q4 of Annex 1 and of Article 1(b) and (c) and Article 15 of Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006 on waste (OJ 2006 L 114, p. 9) — Definition of waste — Inclusion of hydrocarbons and heavy fuel oil, by itself or mixed with water and sand? — Responsibility of the producer and/or holder of the waste where it is transported by a third party
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A substance such as that at issue in the main proceedings, namely heavy fuel oil sold as a combustible fuel, does not constitute waste within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Commission Decision 96/350/EC of 24 May 1996, where it is exploited or marketed on economically advantageous terms and is capable of actually being used as a fuel without requiring prior processing.

               2.

               Hydrocarbons accidentally spilled at sea following a shipwreck, mixed with water and sediment and drifting along the coast of a Member State until being washed up on that coast, constitute waste within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, where they are no longer capable of being exploited or marketed without prior processing.

               3.

               For the purposes of applying Article 15 of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, to the accidental spillage of hydrocarbons at sea causing pollution of the coastline of a Member State:

                           —

                           the national court may regard the seller of those hydrocarbons and charterer of the ship carrying them as a producer of that waste within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, and thereby as a ‘previous holder’ for the purposes of applying the first part of the second indent of Article 15 of that directive, if that court, in the light of the elements which it alone is in a position to assess, reaches the conclusion that that seller-charterer contributed to the risk that the pollution caused by the shipwreck would occur, in particular if he failed to take measures to prevent such an incident, such as measures concerning the choice of ship;

                           —

                           if it happens that the cost of disposing of the waste produced by an accidental spillage of hydrocarbons at sea is not borne by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, or cannot be borne because the ceiling for compensation for that accident has been reached, and that, in accordance with the limitations and/or exemptions of liability laid down, the national law of a Member State, including the law derived from international agreements, prevents that cost from being borne by the shipowner and/or the charterer, even though they are to be regarded as ‘holders’ within the meaning of Article 1(c) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Decision 96/350, such a national law will then, in order to ensure that Article 15 of that directive is correctly transposed, have to make provision for that cost to be borne by the producer of the product from which the waste thus spread came. In accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, however, such a producer cannot be liable to bear that cost unless he has contributed by his conduct to the risk that the pollution caused by the shipwreck will occur.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case F-2/06: Action brought on  5 January 2006  — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/48

         Action brought on 5 January 2006 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-2/06)
   (2006/C 86/87)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: I. Cazzato, avvocato)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision closing the procedure for recognition of the applicant's legal guarantees in particular under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations in respect of an accident sustained by the applicant on 10 September 2003.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of the application, the applicant submits first of all that the contested decision is flawed by reason of manifest inconsistency and a complete failure to state reasons. In fact, even though on several occasions he had stated that he was committed to pursuing the procedure intended to confer upon him the benefits under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and that he was available to be examined by the doctor appointed by the defendant, the defendant nevertheless found that the applicant was not committed to pursuing the procedure in question and therefore closed that procedure.
   The applicant further alleges that the defendant infringed the law, given that there is no rule requiring an official who was the victim of an accident to contact directly the doctor appointed by the institution to fix an appointment.
   Lastly, the applicant alleges that the defendant has infringed the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, in that it failed to have due regard to the interests of the applicant and acted in a manner inconsistent with official duty.


title: Notice of an open competition

text:
C 111/8        EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18.4.2000
                                            COURT OF JUSTICE
                                            NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                       (2000/C 111/07)
        The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of the European
        Communities No C 111 A of 18 April 2000 the following Notice of open competition:
        Spanish edition:
        CJ/LA/3 (Lawyer-linguists of Spanish mother-tongue)
        To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personal Division of the Court of Justice of the
        European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
        Closing date for application: 31. May 2000


title: Case C-223/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, 1a Secção, 1a Subsecção by order of that court of 10 May 1999 in the case of Director-Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu against Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços SA

text:
C 233/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12.8.2000
Action brought on 5 June 2000 by the Commission of the                   to the objective pursued. However, the obligation of forwar-
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                     ding, in respect of each admission, documents which the
                                                                         Provincial Architects Council already has in its possession (for
                                                                         example, the diploma) is an additional burden which runs
                         (Case C-222/00)                                 counter to Article 22(4) of the directive where such documents
                                                                         are less than 12 months old. Moreover, the Belgian rules
                         (2000/C 233/34)                                 cannot require payment of a registration fee of BEF 6 000 by
                                                                         architects established in a Member State other than Belgium
                                                                         who register on the ‘special register’ since the third paragraph
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before              of Article 22(1) clearly requires that such registration should
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 June               take place without any additional costs. Those rules also
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                      infringe Article 49 EC.
represented by Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                (The second plea in law alleging that the principle of provision
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                       of a ‘single service’ is being applied)
                                                                         The Belgian Government states that that principle is no longer
The applicant claims that the Court should                               applied; it is however not disputed that a mere circular
                                                                         — which has moreover never been communicated to the
1.    Declare that,                                                      Commission — is not sufficient to bring to an end the legal
                                                                         uncertainty arising from the lack of binding legislation in that
                                                                         respect.
      —     by maintaining in force a procedure which makes
            registration of architects lawfully established in
            another Member State on the ‘special register’ of            (The third plea in law alleging that admission to the register
            architects providing their services, as provided for in      was refused on the ground that the principle that the activities
            Article 22(1) of Directive 85/334/EEC(1), subject to         of architects and contractors are mutually incompatible was
            production of the documents listed in Article 22(3)          not observed)
            even where those documents have already been
            communicated less than 12 months previously and
            to the payment of registration fees;                         The directive does not preclude a Member State from making
                                                                         the profession of architect incompatible with that of building
                                                                         contractor or trader in construction materials and requiring
      —     by maintaining in force a procedure which makes it           compliance from architects established in another Member
            impossible for architects established in Member              State who provide services in the first Member State. However,
            States other than Belgium to provide several services        in order to ensure compliance, the administration has available
            simultaneously within Belgium;                               means which are less restrictive than the requirement to
                                                                         amend the statutes of the architect’s firm consultation of the
      —     by making admission to the register of service               agreement between the client and the architect should be
            providers of an architect established in a Member            sufficient in that regard.
            State who wishes to provide services in Belgium
            subject to amendment of the statutes of that archi-
                                                                         (1) OJ 1985 L 223, p. 15.
            tect’s firm without ascertaining beforehand whether
            that architect was in a position to comply in
            Belgium with Belgian rules prohibiting persons
            from simultaneously practising as architects and
            contractors;
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the abovementioned directive.                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
                                                                         Tribunal Administrativo, 1a Secção, 1a Subsecção by or-
2.    Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                     der of that court of 10 May 1999 in the case of Director-
                                                                         Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social
                                                                         Europeu against Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de
                                                                                Serviços SA
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-223/00)
(The first plea in law alleging that admission to the register is                                  (2000/C 233/35)
not practically automatic)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Notification of the provision of services must not be made               European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal
subject to conditions which are disproportionate or unrelated            Administrativo, 1a Secção, 1a Subsecção (First Sub-Chamber
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 233/19
of the First Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court) of           1.    In calls for tenders for public works contracts, do clauses
10 May 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on                     excluding undertakings which have not submitted with
2 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Director-               their tenders explanations concerning components of the
Geral do Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social                       price indicated, amounting to at least 75 % of the figure
Europeu against Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços                    specified in the tender conditions represent an obstacle
SA. The Supremo Tribunal Administrativo referred to the                      to the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37 (1)?
Court for a preliminary ruling on the correct interpretation of
Community law, namely:                                                 2.    Does the establishment of a mechanism for determining
                                                                             the threshold indicative of irregularity, below which the
                                                                             validity of tenders falls to be verified, on the basis of an
—    Articles 5(4) and 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                             ad hoc criterion and an arithmetical mean, automatically
     No 2950/83 (1) of 17 October 1983 on the implementa-                    so that undertakings are unable to ascertain the threshold
     tion of Decision 83/516/EEC (2) on the tasks of the
                                                                             in advance, represent an obstacle to the application of
     European Social Fund (ESF); and
                                                                             Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
—    Article 5 of Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October            3.    Does the fact that the exchange of views is to take place
     1983 on the tasks of the European Social Fund                           at an earlier stage, without the undertaking which has
                                                                             allegedly submitted an irregular tender being assured of
                                                                             an opportunity to state its reasons, after the opening of
in order to ascertain whether where the certification decision,              the envelopes and before the adoption of the measure
for which the DAFSE is competent, deems certain expenditure                  excluding it, represent an obstacle to the application of
to be unreasonable and only certifies it in part (in other words,            Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
the negative part of the certification decision) makes it
impossible for the Commission to approve payments relating             4.    Does a provision under which the contracting authority
to the expenditure which was not certified by the competent                  may take account of explanations relating solely to the
body in the Member State.                                                    economy of the construction method or the technical
                                                                             solutions adopted or the exceptionally favourable condi-
                                                                             tions available to the tenderer represent an obstacle to
(1) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 1.                                                     the application of Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
(2) OJ 1983 L 289, p. 38.
                                                                       5.    Does the exclusion of explanations relating exclusively to
                                                                             items for which minimum values have been established
                                                                             by administrative provisions or can be inferred from
                                                                             official lists represent an obstacle to the application of
                                                                             Article 30(4) of Directive 93/37?
                                                                       (1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber                   coordination of procedures for the award of public works
of the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) by order of                   contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54).
that court of 7 March 2000 in the case of Cavalleri Ottavio
SpA, acting on its own account and also as mandated
under its ad hoc association with Anselmi Cave Ghiaia Srl,
against ANAS — Ente Nazionale per le Strade and Lauro
Cantieri Valsesia SpA, acting on its own account and also
  as mandated under its ad hoc association with IOS SpA
                                                                       Action brought on 9 June 2000 by the Commission of the
                         (Case C-225/00)
                                                                        European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                         (2000/C 233/36)                                                         (Case C-230/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/37)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Fourth Chamber of
the Consiglio di Stato (Council of State) of 7 March 2000,             An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before
received at the Court Registry on 5 June 2000, for a prelimina-        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 June
ry ruling in the case of Cavalleri Ottavio SpA, acting on its          2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
own account and also as mandated under its ad hoc association          represented by H. van Lier, Legal Adviser in the Commission’s
with Anselmi Cave Ghiaia Srl, against ANAS — Ente Nazionale            Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by H. van der Woude
per le Strade and Lauro Cantieri Valsesia SpA, acting on its           and T.E.M. Chellingsworth, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
own account and also as mandated under its ad hoc association          for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la
with IOS SpA, on the following questions:                              Cruz, also of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-273/16: Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METAPORN)

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/55

         Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Sun Media v EUIPO — Meta4 Spain (METAPORN)
   (Case T-273/16)
   (2016/C 270/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sun Media Ltd (Central Hong Kong, Hong-Kong Special Administrative Region of China) (represented by: A. Schnider, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meta4 Spain, SA (Las Rozas, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘METAPORN’ — Application for registration No 11 819 281

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 March 2016 in Joined Cases R 653/2015-2 and R 674/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and, in case it intervenes in writing, the other party to the proceedings before EUIPO, to bear their own costs and to compensate the costs incurred by the plaintiff in the proceedings before the General Court and in the appellate proceedings before EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Articles 75 et seq of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the EUIPO’s duty to exercise its powers in accordance with the general principles of European Union law.


title: Case C-449/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Solvay Solexis SpA v European Commission (Appeal — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ — Concept of a ‘single and continuous infringement’ — Calculation of the fine)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 — Solvay Solexis SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-449/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market for hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ - Concept of a ‘single and continuous infringement’ - Calculation of the fine)
   2014/C 45/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Solvay Solexis SpA (represented by: T. Salonico, G.L. Zampa and G. Barone, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, L Malferrari and B. Gencarelli, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 16 June 2011 in Case T-195/06 Solvay Solexis SpA v Commission by which the Court dismissed the action for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 1766 final of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) in so far as it concerns Solvay Solexis — Duration of the infringement — Concepts of ‘agreement’ and ‘concerted practice’ — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Solvay Solexis SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


Avis juridique important

|

E1994P0001

Reference for an advisory opinion, made pursuant to the order of the tullilautakunta dated 19 April 1994, in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Case E-1/94)

Official Journal C 199 , 21/07/1994 P. 0009 - 0009

Reference for an advisory opinion, made pursuant to the order of the tullilautakunta dated 19 April 1994, in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Case E-1/94) (94/C 199/08)Reference has been made to the EFTA Court by an order of the tullilautakunta (Appeals Committee of the National Board of Customs) of 19 April 1994, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 April 1994, for an advisory opinion in the appeal by Ravintoloitsijain Liiton Kustannus Oy Restamark against the decision of the Helsingin piiritullikamari (Helsinki District Custom House) on the following questions:1. Can it be considered, having regard, on the one hand, to the statutory monopoly of Oy Alko Ab (the alcohol company) to import alcoholic beverages but, on the other hand, also to the measures of authorization which the company has announced it is ready to institute in order to permit commercial import of alcohol on terms laid down by the company itself, that the commercial import of alcohol from other Contracting States is not quantitatively restricted or hindered by a measure having equivalent effect contrary to Article 11 of the EEA Agreement, if the administrative court of appeal confirms the decision of the competent customs authority not to permit the imported consignment of alcohol into free circulation without the permission of Oy Alko Ab, which permission is requird by law?2. Is the statutory monopoly referred to above contrary to Article 16 of the Agreement?If so:Is this Article so unconditional and sufficiently precise as to have direct legal effect and should the import monopoly therefore be considered as having expired from 1 January 1994?


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-348/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement Directive 1999/13/EC)

text:
C 275/22                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)                                                               (First Chamber)
                        of 2 October 2003                                                             of 2 October 2003
in Case C-348/02: Commission of the European Communi-                        in Case C-89/03: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                         ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure               (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
              to implement Directive 1999/13/EC)                                             to transpose Directive 93/15/EEC)
                          (2003/C 275/38)                                                              (2003/C 275/39)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                               (Language of the case: French)
(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-348/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic                In Case C-89/03, Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for a               (Agents: L. Ström and B. Stromsky) v Grand Duchy of
declaration that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and           Luxembourg (Agents: S. Schreiner): Application for a declar-
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                   ation that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations
Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation of                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of                    Council Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonis-
organic solvents in certain activities and installations (OJ 1999            ation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market
L 85, p. 1, and corrigendum, OJ 1999 L 188, p. 54) the Italian               and supervision of explosives for civil uses (OJ 1993 L 121,
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15               p. 20), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
of that directive, the Court (First Chamber), composed of:                   obligations under that directive, the Court (First Chamber),
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas                  composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
(Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                       and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October 2003,                 Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
in which it:                                                                 on 2 October 2003, in which it:
1.   Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and        1.   Declares that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
     Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the limitation                      Directive 93/15/EEC of 5 April 1993 on the harmonisation
     of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of                 of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and
     organic solvents in certain activities and installations, the                supervision of explosives for civil uses, the Grand Duchy of
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                  Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     Article 15 of that directive;                                                directive;
2.   Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                           2.   Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.                                                  (1) OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.


title: Order of the President of the Court of 14 December 2001 in Case C-404/01 P (R): Commission of the European Communities v Euroalliages and Others (Appeal — Order of the President of the Court of First Instance given in proceedings for interim measures — Dumping — Decision terminating expiry review — Urgency — Damage of a pecuniary nature — Uncertainty as to its subsequent reparation by means of an action for damages)

text:
18.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/17
       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
                                                                            Paix, Luxembourg, by judgment of that court of 28 Febru-
                                                                            ary 2002 in the case of Tilly Reichling against Léon
                       of 14 December 2001                                  Wampach; intervener: Etablissement d’assurances contre
                                                                                la vieillesse et l’invalidité
in Case C-404/01 P (R): Commission of the European
          Communities v Euroalliages and Others (1)
                                                                                (Case C-69/02)
(Appeal — Order of the President of the Court of First
Instance given in proceedings for interim measures —
Dumping — Decision terminating expiry review — Urgency                                              (2002/C 118/27)
— Damage of a pecuniary nature - Uncertainty as to its
 subsequent reparation by means of an action for damages)
                           (2002/C 118/26)
                                                                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                     (Language of the case: French)                         European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de Paix,
                                                                            Luxembourg, of 28 February 2002, which was received at the
                                                                            Court Registry on 1 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the case of Tilly Reichling against Léon Wampach; intervener:
                    in the European Court Reports)                          Etablissement d’assurances contre la vieillesse et l’invalidité on
                                                                            the following questions:
                                                                            1.   Must Article 6(3) of the Brussels Convention be interpret-
In Case C-404/01 P (R): Commission of the European Com-                          ed as meaning that an action for enforcement of a
munities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and S. Meany, assisted by A.P.                   judicial decision, necessarily involving in accordance with
Bentley, Barrister), supported by TNC Kazchrome, established                     procedural rules under domestic law the intervention of
at Almaty (Kazakhstan), and Alloy 2000 SA, established in                        a court of law, may be regarded as an original claim based
Luxembourg (lawyers: J.E. Flynn, Barrister, J. Magnin and                        on a contract or on facts? May an original claim based on
S. Mills, Solicitors), — appeal against the order of the President               the enforcement of a judgment declaring and fixing
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of                    entitlement to maintenance be considered to be based on
1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R Euroalliages and Others v                       a contract or facts within the meaning of Article 6(3)?
Commission, not yet published in European Court Reports,                         May an original claim seeking enforcement of an
seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to                       entitlement to maintenance be considered to be based on
the proceedings being Euroalliages, established in Brussels                      a contract or facts within the meaning of Article 6(3)?
(Belgium), Péchiney Electrométallurgie, established in Cour-
bevoie (France), Vargön Alloys AB, established in Vargön
(Sweden) and Ferroatlántica, established in Madrid (Spain)                 2.   Must the expression ‘arising from the same contract or
(lawyers: D. Voillemot and O. Prost, supported by Kingdom of                     facts on which the original claim was based’ in Article 6(3)
Spain (Agent: L. Fraguas Gadea) — the President of the Court                     of the Brussels Convention be considered to be more
made an order on 14 December 2001, the operative part of                         restrictive than the expression ‘related actions’ used in the
which is as follows:                                                             third paragraph of Article 22 of the Brussels Convention?
1.    The order of the President of the Court of First Instance of          3.   Where the court which is to hear and determine the
      1 August 2001 in Case T-132/01 R Euroalliages and Others                   original claim has jurisdiction under Article 16(5) of the
      v Commission is set aside.                                                 Brussels Convention without that original claim requiring
                                                                                that court to adjudicate on the substance of the relation-
                                                                                ship between the parties to the dispute, does Article 6(3)
2.    The case is referred back to the Court of First Instance.                  of the Brussels Convention make it possible for a
                                                                                defendant to bring before that court a counter-claim
                                                                                concerning the legal substance, whereas if it had submit-
3.    Costs are reserved.                                                        ted that claim by way of an independent action, it would
                                                                                have fallen, under the terms of the Brussels Convention,
                                                                                within the jurisdiction of the courts of another Con-
                                                                                tracting State?
(1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.


title: Case T-520/16: Order of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — ED v EUIPO (Civil service — Temporary staff — Teleworking — Request for extension — Refusal — Actions — Subsequent grant of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/37

         Order of the General Court of 24 November 2016 — ED v EUIPO
   (Case T-520/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - Temporary staff - Teleworking - Request for extension - Refusal - Actions - Subsequent grant of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 022/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ED (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought under Article 270 TFEU, seeking annulment of the decision of EUIPO of 15 January 2014 refusing to grant the applicant’s request of 26 September 2013 to be allowed essentially to continue teleworking from Barcelona (Spain) until her health was restored and annulment of the decision of the President of EUIPO of 3 June 2014 rejecting her complaint of 7 February 2014.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate in the present case.

               2.

               ED shall bear one third of her own costs.

               3.

               The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) shall bear its own costs and pay two thirds of the costs incurred by ED.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-93/14 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case T-274/16: Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Saleh Thabet v Council

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/56

         Action brought on 27 May 2016 — Saleh Thabet v Council
   (Case T-274/16)
   (2016/C 270/63)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Suzanne Saleh Thabet (Cairo, Egypt) (represented by B. Kennelly and J. Pobjoy, Barristers, and by G. Martin and M. Rushton, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 of 18 March 2016 amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2016 L 74, p. 40), insofar as it applies to the applicant;

               —

               declare that Article 1(1) of Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 63) and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 4) are inapplicable insofar as they apply to the applicant, and, as a consequence, annul the Decision (CFSP) 2016/411, insofar as it applies to the applicant,

               —

               order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to identify a proper legal base for Article 1(1) of Decision 2011/172/CFSP (the ‘Decision’) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 270/2011 (the ‘Regulation’). There is no evidence that the Council undertook any review of the legal basis of Article 1(1) of the Decision in adopting the Contested Decision, notwithstanding the express obligation to do so under Article 5 of the Decision. The fact that Article 1(1) may have had a valid legal basis when it was first adopted on 21 March 2011 does not provide the provision with an enduring legal basis until 2016 or later.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6, read with Articles 2 and 3, TEU and Articles 47 and 48 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights by the Council’s assumption that the judicial proceedings in Egypt complied with fundamental human rights.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council has made manifest errors of assessment in considering that the criterion for listing the applicant in Article 1(1) of the Decision and Article 2(1) of the Regulation was satisfied.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to provide adequate reasons for re-designating the applicant.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council has violated the applicant’s right of defence and the right to good administration and effective judicial review. In particular, the Council failed to carefully and impartially examine whether the alleged reasons said to justify re-designation were well founded in light of the representations made by the applicant prior to re-designation.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the Council has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including her right to protection of property and reputation. The impact of the Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/411 on the applicant is far-reaching, both as regards to her property, and to her reputation worldwide. The Council has failed to demonstrate that the freezing of the applicant’s assets and economic resources is related to, or justified by, any legitimate aim, still less that it is proportionate to such an aim.


title: Case C-528/06: Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/18

         Action brought on 22 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-528/06)
   (2007/C 42/31)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti, Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/98/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information, or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into domestic law expired on 1 July 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 345, p. 90.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 16 September 1997 in Case C-362/95 P: Blackspur DIY Ltd, a company incorporated under the law of England and Wales, Steven Kellar, J. M. A. Glancy and Ronald Cohen v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Causal link - Anti-dumping duties - Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3052/88 and Council Regulation (EEC) No 725/89)

text:
1 . 11 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 331 /3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)                                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
                       of 16 September 1997                                                 of 16 September 1997
in Case C-362/95 P: Blackspur DIY Ltd, a company                              in Case C-139/96: Commission of the European
incorporated under the law of England and Wales, Steven                       Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( l )
Kellar, J. M. A. Glancy and Ronald Cohen v. Council of
the European Union and Commission of the European                       (Failure of a State to fulfil obligations — Directives 93/
                          Communities (')                               48/EEC,     93/49/EEC and 93/61/EEC — Failure to
                                                                                transpose within the period prescribed)
(Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Community —
Causal link — Anti-dumping duties — Commission                                                    ( 97/C 331/06 )
Regulation (EEC) No 3052/88 and Council Regulation
                         (EEC) No 725/89)
                             ( 97/C 331/05 )                                            (Language of the case: German)
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-362/95 P, Blackspur DIY Ltd, a company
incorporated under the law of England and Wales, with its
registered office at Unsworth, Bury (United Kingdom ),                  In Case C-139/96: Commission of the European
Steven Kellar, J. M. A. Glancy and Ronald Cohen residing                Communities (Agent: Klaus Dieter Borchardt) v. Federal
in Manchester (United Kingdom), represented by K. P. E.                 Republic of Germany (Agents : Ernst Röder, Bernd Kloke
Lasok QC, instructed by C. Khan, Solicitor, with an                     and Sabine Maass ) — application for a declaration that,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M.                 by failing to take within the prescribed period the
Dennewald, 12 Avenue de la Porte Neuve, appeal against                  measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the                      93/48/EEC of 23 June 1993 setting out the schedule
European Communities ( First Chamber, Extended                          indicating the conditions to be met by fruit plant
Composition ) in Case T-168/94 Blackspur and Others v.                  propagating material and fruit plants intended for fruit
Council and Commission [ 1995] ECR 11-2627, seeking to                  production, pursuant to Council Directive 92/34/EEC (2),
have that judgment set aside and the case remitted to the               Commission Directive 93/49/EEC of 23 June 1993 setting
Court of First Instance, the other parties to the                       out the schedule indicating the conditions to be met by
proceedings being: Council of the European Union                        ornamental plant propagating material and ornamental
(Agents: Y. Crétien, assisted by H.-J. Rabe and M.                      plants pursuant to Council Directive 91/682/EEC ( 3 ) and
Berrisch and Commission of the European Communities                     Commission Directive 93/61 /EEC of 2 July 1993 setting
(Agent: N. Khan, assisted by H.-J. Rabe and M. Berrisch,                out the schedules indicating the conditions to be met by
— the Court ( First Chamber) composed of: L. Sevón,                     vegetable propagating and planting material, other than
President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and M.                        seed pursuant to Council Directive 92/33/EEC (4), the
Wathelet (Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate                    Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, gave a judgment on                  obligations under the EC Treaty and those directives —
 16 September 1997, in which it:                                        the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
                                                                        President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris
                                                                        ( Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                        Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R.
 1 . dismisses the appeal;                                              Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
                                                                        1997, in which it:
2 . orders Blackspur DIY Ltd, Steven Kellar, J. M. A.
      Glancy and Ronald Cohen to bear their own costs and               1 . declares that, by failing to take within the prescribed
      to pay those of the Council and the Commission.                        period the measures necessary to comply with
 (') OJ C 16, 20 . 1 . 1996 .                                                — Commission Directive 93/48/EEC of 23 June 1993
                                                                                setting out the schedule indicating the conditions
                                                                                to be met by fruit plant propagating material and
                                                                                fruit plants intended for fruit production, pursuant
                                                                                to Council Directive 92/34/EEC,


15.6.2002             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 144/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-407/00 (1)             from the register of Case C-462/00: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Republic of Austria.
                       (2002/C 144/59)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
By order of 20 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-407/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-235/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 144/63)
                                                                  By order of 9 January 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Case C-235/01: Commission of the
       Removal from the register of Case C-408/00 (1)             European Communities v Italian Republic.
                       (2002/C 144/60)                            (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
By order of 22 February 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-408/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                      Removal from the register of Case C-242/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.                                                                (2002/C 144/64)
                                                                  By order of 7 February 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Case C-242/01: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg.
       Removal from the register of Case C-461/00 (1)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                       (2002/C 144/61)
By order of 1st March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-461/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                       Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-269/01 and
                                                                                C-270/01 (1)
(1) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.                                                                (2002/C 144/65)
                                                                  By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  from the register of Joined Cases C-269/01 and C-270/01
                                                                  (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile e
       Removal from the register of Case C-462/00 (1)
                                                                  Penale di L’Aquila): Flora Panepucci v Rina Iannarelli (Case
                                                                  C-269/01) and Attilio Maria Cecchini v Mario Basile (Case
                       (2002/C 144/62)                            C-270/01).
                                                                  (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
By order of 1st March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Case C-237/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2007 — Dieter Janecek v Freistaat Bayern

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2007 — Dieter Janecek v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-237/07)
   (2007/C 183/29)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dieter Janecek

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 7(3) of Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a third party whose health is impaired is entitled to the preparation of an action plan even if, irrespective of any action plan, he is in a position to enforce his right to avoid any detriment to his health as a result of the nuisance limit value for particulate matter PM10 being exceeded, by bringing an action for intervention by the public authority?

               2.

               If so, is a third party who is affected by such concentrations of particulate matter PM10 as could be detrimental to health entitled to have an action plan drawn up laying down the measures to be taken in the short term to ensure strict compliance with the nuisance limit value for particulate matter PM10?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, to what extent must the measures included in an action plan serve to reduce the risk of exceeding the limit value and to limit the duration of such an occurrence? Can an action plan be limited, on the principle of ‘one step at a time’, to measures which, while not guaranteeing compliance with the limit value, nevertheless contribute in the short term to improvements in ambient air quality?

      (1)  OJ L 296, p. 55.


title: Case C-63/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil 4, Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2009 — Axel Walz v Clickair SA

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil 4, Barcelona (Spain) lodged on 13 February 2009 — Axel Walz v Clickair SA
   (Case C-63/09)
   2009/C 102/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Mercantil 4, Barcelona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Axel Walz

      Defendant: Clickair SA

      Question referred

   Does the limit of liability referred to in Article 22.2 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage, signed in Montreal on 28 May 1999, include both non-material damage and material damage resulting from the loss of baggage?