title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 April 1997 in Case C-15/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Morlaix): EARL de Kerlast v. Union Régionale de Coopératives Agricoles (Unicopa) and Coopérative du Trieux (Additional levy on milk - Reference quantity - Conditions governing transfer - Temporary transfer - Société en participation formed between producers)

text:
28 . 6 . 97          I EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 199/1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Sixth Chamber, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G.
                                                                      Hirsch ( Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; D. Ruiz
                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                      Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,
                        of 17 April 1997                              Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 April 1997,
                                                                      in which it has ruled :
in Case C-15/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Morlaix): EARL de
Kerlast v. Union Régionale de Coopératives Agricoles                  1 . Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of
            (Unicopa) and Coopérative du Trieux (')                       31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the
                                                                          application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of
(Additional levy on milk — Reference quantity —                           Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk
Conditions governing transfer — Temporary transfer —                      products sector must be interpreted as meaning that
     Societe en participation formed between producers)                   the formation of a company under national law may
                          ( 97/C 199/01                                   not be equated to a lease if its purpose and effect are
                                                                          to realize — by transferring only the reference
                                                                          quantities of one of its members, without transferring
                                                                          the land of the holding to which they are attached —
                 (Language of the case: French)                           the marketable value of those quantities for the benefit
                                                                          of some of those members and if those members, in
                                                                          their capacity as producers, do not have the intention
                                                                          of continuing to operate the holding. Equally, Article 7
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 cannot apply to the
          published in the European Court Reports)                        formation of such a type of company viewed as a
                                                                          required structural adjustment within the meaning of
                                                                          Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the
In Case C- 15/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177               Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organization
of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Grande Instance,                      of the market in milk and milk products, as amended
Morlaix, France, for a preliminary ruling in the                          by Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March
                                                                          1984 .
proceedings pending before that court between, on the one
hand, EARL de Kerlast and on the other hand Union
Regionale de Cooperatives Agricoles ( Unicopa ) and
Cooperative du Trieux — on the interpretation of                      2 . Article 12 (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 must be
Article 40 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, Article 1 of Council                   interpreted as requiring in principle actual resumption
Regulation ( EEC ) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 amending                    of production by the person concerned.
Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 on the common organization
of the market in milk and milk products ( OJ No L 90,
1 . 4 . 1984, p. 10 ) and Articles 3a, 7 and 12(c ) of Council        3 . The second subparagraph of Article 40 (3) of the
Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting                    Treaty does not preclude a Member State from
general rules for the application of the levy referred to in              authorizing, for the purpose of carrying on milk
Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 in the milk and                production, recourse to certain forms of company
milk products sector ( OJ No L 90, 1 . 4 . 1984, p. 13 ) —                under national law, such as partial GAECs confined to
the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: J. L. Murray,                   dairy farming, whilst prohibiting recourse to other
President of the Fourth Chamber acting as President of the                forms of company, such as societes en participation, in
 ---pagebreak--- No C 199/2              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28 . 6 . 97
      so far as the latter may favour forms of production                  interest at the annual rate of 8% to run from
      which are not in compliance with Community                           24 January 1991 until the date of actual payment;
      legislation.
(') OJ No C 54,4 . 3 . 1995 .                                         5 . orders the European Parliament to pay all the costs of
                                                                           the proceedings before both courts.
                                                                      0 ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Sixth Chamber)
                         of 17 April 1997
       in Case C-90/95 P: Henri de Compte v. European
                           Parliament (')                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Officials — Decision recognizing the existence of an                                            (First Chamber)
occupational disease — Revocation of an administrative
act — Legitimate expectations — Reasonable period —                                            of 17 April 1997
                               Appeal)                                in Case C-138/95 P: Campo Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina
                           ( 97/C 199/02 )                            Agricola Industrial SA ( LAISA) and Cerestar Iberica SA
                                                                      v. Council of the European Union, supported by
                                                                               Commission of the European Communities H
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (Appeal — Sugar — Accession of the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                          — Alignment of sugar prices — Isoglucose production)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                                              ( 97/C 199/03 )
In Case C-90/95 P: Henri de Compte ( represented by:
initially Eric Boigelot, subsequently Francesco Pasetti                               (Language of the case: English)
Bombardella ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities of
26 January 1995 in Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92
Henri de Compte v. European Parliament [ 1995 ] ECR-SC                In Case C-138/95 P: Campo Ebro Industrial SA, Levantina
II- 1 , seeking to have that judgment set aside, save in so far       Agricola Industrial SA ( LAISA ) and Cerestar Iberica SA
as it orders the Parliament to pay the appellant the sum of           ( Legal Adviser: Paul Glazener ) — appeal against the
Bfrs 200 000 by way of compensation for non-material                  judgment of the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber) of
damage — the other party to the proceedings being:                    21 February 1995 in Case T-472/93 Campo Ebro and
European Parliament ( Agent: Francois Vainker, assisted by            Others v. Council [ 1995 ] ECR 11-421 , seeking to have that
Denis Waelbroeck ) — The Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                     judgment set aside in part, the other party to the
composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Chamber,                 proceedings being Council of the European Union ( Agent:
J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.                 Arthur Brautigam ), supported by Commission of the
Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate                European Communities ( Agents : Jose Luis Iglesias
General; R. Grass, Registar, has given a judgment on                  Buhigues and James MacDonald Flett) — the Court ( First
 17 April 1997, in which it:                                          Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the
                                                                      Chamber ( Rapporteur ), D. A. O. Edward and M.
                                                                      Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.
 1 . sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance           Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 April 1997,
       of the European Communities on 26 January 1995 in              in which it :
      Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92 De Compte v.
       Parliament, save in so far as it orders the European
       Parliament to pay the appellant the sum of Bfrs
       200 000 by way of compensation for non-material                 1 . dismisses the appeal;
       damage;
2 . in Case T-90/91 , annuls the decision of 18 April 1991 ;          2 . orders the appellants to pay the costs and the
                                                                            intervener to bear its own costs.
 3 . in Case T-62/92, annuls the decision of 20 January
       1992;                                                           (') OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .
4 . orders the European Parliament to pay the appellant
       the sum of Bfrs 9 147 091 , together with default


title: Case C-651/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 December 2013 — Lb Group Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 9 December 2013 — Lb Group Ltd v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Others
   (Case C-651/13)
   2014/C 112/26
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lb Group Ltd

      Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato (AAMS) and Galassia Game Srl

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in [Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10 Costa and Cifone [2012] ECR] to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past, where that tendering procedure has been launched in order to remedy the consequences of the unlawful exclusion of a certain number of operators from earlier tendering procedures?

               2.

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU and the principles laid down by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Costa and Cifone to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 March 2000 in Case C-439/98: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 95/30/EC — Protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work)

text:
27.5.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 149/5
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)                                                           (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 March 2000
                          of 16 March 2000
                                                                           in Case C-439/98: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-284/98 P: European Parliament v Roland Bieber                                         ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Appeal — Officials — Leave on personal grounds —                          (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Reinstatement — Non-contractual liability of the Com-                      Directive 95/30/EC — Protection of workers from risks
munity — Determination of the period to be taken into                             related to exposure to biological agents at work)
         account for calculating the damage suffered)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/08)
                           (2000/C 149/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         In Case C-439/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: initially A. Aresu, subsequently K. Oldfelt Hjertonsson)
                                                                           against Italian Republic (Agent: Professor U. Leanza, assisted
In Case C-284/98 P: European Parliament (Agents: J.L.R. Quin-
                                                                           by D. Del Gaizo) — application for a declaration that by failing
tana and E. Waldherr), appeal against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth                 to adopt and bring into force within the prescribed period the
                                                                           laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Chamber) of 26 May 1998 in Case T-205/96 Bieber v Parlia-
                                                                           comply with Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995
ment [1998] ECR I-A-231 and II-723, seeking to have that
judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being               adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC
                                                                           on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to
Roland Bieber, a former official of the European Parliament,
                                                                           biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within
residing in Lausanne, Switzerland, represented by G. Vander-
sanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                the meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC)
                                                                           (OJ 1995 L 155, p. 41), or by failing to communicate such
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue
                                                                           provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
de Cessange — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:
R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch             under that Directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed
                                                                           of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), President of the
and V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 March 2000, in which                 Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; S. Alber,
it:                                                                        Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
                                                                           16 March 2000, in the operative part of which it:
1. Sets aside point 3 of the operative part of the judgment of the
                                                                           1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
    Court of First Instance of 26 May 1998 in Case T-205/96
                                                                               laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
    Bieber v Parliament;
                                                                               comply with Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995
                                                                               adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC
2. Declares that the amount payable to Mr Bieber as compensation               on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to
    for his loss of income is equivalent to the difference between the         biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within the
    net remuneration he would have received between 1 January                  meaning of Article 16 (1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the Italian
    1995 and 23 February 1996 and the total net income he                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
    received from other employment;
                                                                           2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
3. Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
4. Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs of this appeal.         (1) OJ C 33 of 6.2.1999.


title: Case T-466/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/34

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-466/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/52)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-211/09: Action brought on 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/13

         Action brought on 11 June 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-211/09)
   2009/C 193/17
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Karanasou-Apostolopoulou and L. Balta, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/24/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, or in any event by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2006/24/EC into national law expired on 15 September 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006, p. 54


title: Case C-245/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, by judgment of that court of 9 June 2000, in the case of Stichting Ter Exploitatie Van Naburige Rechten (SENA) and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS)

text:
C 247/22               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       26.8.2000
meaning of Article 7 of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1)               (e)   must the remuneration be related to the potential
of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member                          numbers of listeners or viewers, or to actual num-
States relating to trade marks, has to adduce evidence and, in                     bers, or partly to the former and partly to the latter
appropriate cases, prove that the goods marketed by him have                       and, if so, in what proportion?
already been put on the market in the European Economic
Area for the first time by the trade-mark owner himself or
                                                                       (III) If the answer to Question I is in the negative, does that
with his consent?
                                                                             mean that the Member States are entirely free to lay down
                                                                             the yardsticks for determining equitable remuneration?
                                                                             Or is that freedom subject to certain limits and, if so,
(1) OJ L 40, p. 1.
                                                                             what are those limits?
                                                                       (1) OJ 1992, L 346, p. 61.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden, by judgment of that court of 9 June 2000,
in the case of Stichting Ter Exploitatie Van Naburige
Rechten (SENA) and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting
                              (NOS)
                                                                       Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                         (Case C-245/00)
                                                                                (Case C-249/00)
                         (2000/C 247/30)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/31)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 9 June               An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 June              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 June
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stichting Ter            2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Exploitatie Van Naburige Rechten (SENA) and Nederlandse                represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal Service, and Enrico
Omroep Stichting (NOS), on the following questions:                    Traversa, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
(I)  Is the term ‘equitable remuneration’ used in Article 8(2)         Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     of Council directive 92/100/EEC(1) of 19 November
     1992 a Community concept which must be interpreted
     and applied in the same way in all the Member States of           The Commission claims that the Court should:
     the European Community?
                                                                       —     declare that, by reserving exclusively for Greek citizens
(II) If so,                                                                  the benefit of applying a reduced tax rate where real
                                                                             property is purchased with currency brought into Greece
     (a)    what are the yardsticks for determining the amount               from abroad, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
            of such equitable remuneration?                                  obligations under Articles 12, 39, 43 and 56 EC;
     (b) should guidance be sought from the levels of                  —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
            remuneration which were agreed or were customary
            as between the organisations concerned prior to
            entry into force of the directive in the relevant
            Member State?                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
     (c)    must or may regard be had to the expectations of           The Commission considers that Law No 1521/1950, as
            the persons concerned at the time of enactment of          amended by Law No 2459/1997, which maintains in force the
            the national legislation implementing the directive        advantage of applying a reduced tax rate so far as concerns
            in regard to the amount of remuneration?                   Greek nationals, discriminates on grounds of nationality,
                                                                       contrary to Articles 12, 39 and 43 EC (ex Articles 6, 48 and
     (d) should guidance be sought from the levels of                  52 of the Treaty). While the Commission respects the right of
            remuneration for broadcasts paid under music copy-         the Greek State to choose freely the system applied by it as
            right by broadcasters?                                     regards the tax on the transfer of real property, it also considers


title: Case T-424/08: Action brought on 16 September 2008 — Nexus Europe (Ireland)/Commission

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/32

         Action brought on 16 September 2008 — Nexus Europe (Ireland)/Commission
   (Case T-424/08)
   (2009/C 6/67)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Nexus Europe (Ireland) Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: M. Noonan, Barrister

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the Commission to pay damages in the sum of EUR 95 418,99;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On the 31 October 2001 the applicant and the Commission entered into a ‘shared-cost and research development’ type of contract, as set out in Annex IV (‘Rules for financial participation by the Community’) to the European Parliament and Council Decision No 182/1999/EC of 22 December 1998 concerning the fifth framework programme of the European Community for RDT activities (1998-2002) (1), whereby the applicant, together with other contractors forming a consortium, undertook to implement the project MUTEIS IST-2000-30117, aimed at explaining and understanding the functional and spatial diversity in Europe's digital economy from a macro and local/urban perspective. The applicant proposed to the Commission to participate in the project on the basis of the ‘Additional costs’ model of reimbursement for the project's eligible costs. Further to an exchange of correspondence between the parties, the Commission informed the applicant that it had to temporarily reject personnel and overhead costs presented by the latter and suggested that the applicant should reconsider its participation on the basis of total eligible costs participation or full participation with the lump sum option in respect of overheads. An amended contract was signed by the applicant, according to such terms, on the 30 April 2004.
   On the basis of its application for damages, the applicant claims that the Commission acted without or in excess of its powers by purporting to amend the contract and to invoke Article 3(2) of Annex II of the contract. The applicant submits that whilst the Commission could have declined to accept the cost model proposed to it by the applicant at the time the contract was signed, there is no provision in the contract allowing the Commission to change the cost model in the course of a project. Moreover, in the absence of any reasonable grounds of suspected fraud or financial irregularity on the part of the applicant, the applicant submits that the Commission was not entitled to invoke Article 3(2) of Annex II of the contract in order to justify the alteration of the contact's terms.
   Further, the applicant contends that the Commission breached its contractual obligations, thereby infringing Article 1134, first paragraph, of the Belgian Civil Code, according to which agreements legally entered into operate as law for those who engaged in them. According to the applicant, it is the cost model agreed by the parties when signing the contract that should prevail for its duration and the Commission therefore breached the contract in requiring the applicant to change the cost model as agreed by the parties.
   In addition, the applicant submits that the Commission breached the principle of legitimate expectations and the principle of sound administration.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 26, p. 1.


title: Case T-565/12: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014  — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — National Iranian Tanker Company v Council
   (Case T-565/12) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Adjustment of the temporal effects of an annulment))
   2014/C 282/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: National Iranian Tanker Company (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: R. Chandrasekera, S. Ashley and C. Murphy, Solicitors, M. Lester, Barrister, and D. Wyatt QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58), in so far as the applicant was listed in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 16), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicant

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed National Iranian Tanker Company in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

               2)

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed National Iranian Tanker Company in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

               3)

               Orders the effects of Decision 2012/635 and Implementing Regulation No 945/2012 to be maintained as regards National Iranian Tanker Company until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of the appeal;

               4)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of National Iranian Tanker Company.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2003 in Case C-462/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Connect Austria Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission (Telecommunications — Mobile telecommunications services — Article 5a(3) of Directive 90/387/EEC — Appeal to an independent body against a decision of the national regulatory authority — Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC — Article 2(3) and (4) of Directive 96/2/EC — Articles 9(2) and 11(2) of Directive 97/13/EC — Allocation to a public undertaking in a dominant position which holds a licence to provide digital mobile telecommunications services according to the GSM 900 standard of additional frequencies in the frequency band reserved for the DCS 1800 standard without imposing a separate fee)

text:
19.7.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 171/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       L 192, p. 1), as amended by Directive 97/51/EC of the
                                                                             European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997
                                                                             (OJ 1997 L 295, p. 23); of Article 2(3) and (4) of Commission
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    Directive 96/2/EC of 16 January 1996 amending Directive 90/
                                                                             388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal communications
                          of 22 May 2003                                     (OJ 1996 L 20, p. 59); of Articles 9(2) and 11(2) of Directive
                                                                             97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                             of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general
in Case C-462/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecom-
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Connect Austria Gesell-                         munications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15); and of Articles 82
schaft für Telekommunikation GmbH v Telekom-Control-                         EC and 86(1) EC, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
                           Kommission ( 1)                                   D. A. O. Edward, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
                                                                             A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges; L. A. Geelhoed,
                                                                             Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
(Telecommunications — Mobile telecommunications services                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it
— Article 5a(3) of Directive 90/387/EEC — Appeal to an                       has ruled:
independent body against a decision of the national regulat-
ory authority — Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC — Article 2(3)
and (4) of Directive 96/2/EC — Articles 9(2) and 11(2) of
Directive 97/13/EC — Allocation to a public undertaking in
a dominant position which holds a licence to provide
digital mobile telecommunications services according to the
GSM 900 standard of additional frequencies in the frequency
band reserved for the DCS 1800 standard without imposing
                           a separate fee)
                          (2003/C 171/01)
                                                                             1.   In order to ensure that national law is interpreted in compliance
                                                                                with Council Directive 90/387/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the
                   (Language of the case: German)                                 establishment of the internal market for telecommunications
                                                                                services through the implementation of open network provision,
                                                                                as amended by Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            and of the Council of 6 October 1997, and that the rights of
                   in the European Court Reports)                                 individuals are effectively protected, national courts must
                                                                                determine whether the relevant provisions of their national law
                                                                                provide individuals with a right of appeal against decisions of
                                                                                the national regulatory authority which satisfies the criteria laid
In Case C-462/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234                        down in Article 5a(3) of Directive 90/387, as amended by
EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                      Directive 97/51. If national law cannot be applied so as to
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                       comply with the requirements of Article 5a(3) of that directive,
Connect Austria Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation GmbH                           a national court or tribunal which satisfies those requirements
and Telekom-Control-Kommission; intervener: Mobilkom                              and which would be competent to hear appeals against decisions
Austria AG, on the interpretation of Article 5a(3) of Council                     of the national regulatory authority if it was not prevented from
Directive 90/387/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the establishment                         doing so by a provision of national law which explicitly excludes
of the internal market for telecommunications services through                    its competence, such as that at issue in the main proceedings,
the implementation of open network provision (OJ 1990                             has the obligation to disapply that provision.
 ---pagebreak--- C 171/2                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             19.7.2003
2.  Articles 82 EC and 86(1) EC in principle preclude national              5.    The prohibition on discrimination laid down in Articles 9(2)
    legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under              and 11(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament
    which additional frequencies in the frequency band reserved for               and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework
    the DCS 1800 standard may be allocated to a public                            for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of
    undertaking in a dominant position which already holds a                      telecommunications services does not preclude national legis-
    licence to provide digital mobile telecommunications services                 lation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under
    according to the GSM 900 standard without the imposition of                   which additional frequencies in the frequency band reserved for
    a separate fee, whereas a new entrant to the market at issue has              the DCS 1800 standard may be allocated to existing holders
    had to pay a fee to obtain a licence to provide digital mobile                of a licence to provide digital mobile telecommunications services
    telecommunications services according to the DCS 1800                         according to the GSM 900 standard without the imposition of
    standard. However, those provisions do not preclude such                      a separate fee, whereas the operator which was granted a licence
    national legislation if the fee imposed on the public undertaking             to provide digital mobile telecommunications services according
    in a dominant position for its GSM 900 licence, including the                 to the DCS 1800 standard has had to pay a fee, if the fee
    subsequent allocation without additional payment of additional                charged to existing operators for their GSM 900 licence,
    frequencies in the frequency band reserved for the DCS 1800                   including the subsequent allocation without additional payment
    standard, appears to be equivalent in economic terms to the fee               of additional frequencies in the frequency band reserved for the
    imposed on the competitor which was granted the DCS 1800                      DCS 1800 standard, appears to be equivalent in economic
    licence.                                                                      terms to the fee imposed on the operator which holds the
                                                                                DCS 1800 licence.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
3.  Article 2(3) and (4) of Commission Directive 96/2/EC of
    16 January 1996 amending Directive 90/388/EEC with
    regard to mobile and personal communications in principle
    precludes national legislation such as that at issue in the main
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    proceedings, under which additional frequencies in the frequency
    band reserved for the DCS 1800 standard may be allocated to
    a public undertaking in a dominant position which already                                           (Fifth Chamber)
    holds a licence to provide digital mobile telecommunications
    services according to the GSM 900 standard without the                                              of 22 May 2003
    imposition of a separate fee, whereas a new entrant to the
    market at issue has had to pay a fee to obtain a licence to             in Case C-355/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
    provide digital mobile telecommunications services according to         the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis): Freskot AE v
    the DCS 1800 standard. However, that provision does not                                          Elliniko Dimosio ( 1)
    preclude such national legislation if the fee imposed on the
    public undertaking in a dominant position for its GSM 900
                                                                            (Common agricultural policy — Free movement of goods
    licence, including the subsequent allocation without additional
                                                                            — Freedom to provide services — State aid — Special
    payment of additional frequencies in the frequency band reserved
                                                                            contribution in favour of an agricultural insurance organis-
    for the DCS 1800 standard, appears to be equivalent in
                                                                                ation)
    economic terms to the fee imposed on the competitor which was
    granted the DCS 1800 licence.
                                                                                (2003/C 171/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
4.  Article 2(3) and (4) of Directive 96/2 does not preclude
    national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceed-
    ings, under which a limited number of additional frequencies in
    the frequency band reserved for the DCS 1800 standard may               In Case C-355/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
    be allocated to existing holders of a licence to provide digital        EC by the Diikitiko Protodikio Thessalonikis (Greece) for a
    mobile telecommunications services according to the GSM 900             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
    standard, including a public undertaking in a dominant                  court between Freskot AE and Elliniko Dimosio, on the
    position, after at least three years have elapsed since the             interpretation of Articles 30 and 38 of the EC Treaty (now,
    1997 decision to grant the licence to provide digital mobile            after amendment, Articles 28 EC and 32 EC), Article 39 of the
    telecommunications services according to the DCS 1800                   EC Treaty (now Article 33 EC), Articles 40 and 59 of the EC
    standard. Nor does that provision preclude national legislation         Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 34 EC and 49 EC),
    such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows such        Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) and Article 92
    an allocation before that period has elapsed if it is established       of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC), and
    that the user capacity of those operators has been exhausted            First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the
    despite the use of all commercially viable technical possibilities.     coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions


title: Case T-464/17: Action brought on 26 July 2017 — TP v Commission

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/36

         Action brought on 26 July 2017 — TP v Commission
   (Case T-464/17)
   (2017/C 309/48)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: TP (represented by: W. Limuti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul and withdraw the contested decision and annul all consequent acts stemming therefrom, including implied acts and acts not known to the applicant, cancelling all consequent effects adversely affecting the applicant and impacting on his legal and financial interests, and ensure that the matter will be treated in such a way as to enable the applicant, after having obtained the necessary information, to set out his views, so that the new decision may be taken in compliance with the principles of trust, legality and transparency;

               —

               acknowledge, in upholding the present action, the damage suffered by the official in the meantime, in particular not only the material damage but also the non-material mental and physical damage as set out in the medical and legal expert report on the events in question, which acknowledges moderately serious existential damage and records that the applicant has trouble adjusting coupled with anxiety and chronic depression, caused by trauma suffered in the workplace and quantifiable at 20 %.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the decision rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant contesting the deduction made by the Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (the PMO) in respect of his salary following the judgment of the Tribunale di Treviso (District Court, Treviso) finalising the divorce between the applicant and his ex-wife.
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on the following pleas in law.

               1.

               Infringement of the guaranteed right of an official to be heard and to set out his views.

               2.

               Infringement of the applicant’s right to obtain information relevant to his defence.

               3.

               Infringement of the applicant’s right to obtain an indication of the reasons why he could not receive the relevant information.

               4.

               Infringement and misapplication of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1) and, consequently, infringement of the applicant’s right to the information concerning the pending procedure against him and failure to fulfil the obligation to provide a statement of reasons for the decisions taken.

               5.

               Infringement of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and, consequently, infringement of the applicant’s right to be defended and assisted by the institution against attacks by other persons.

               6.

               Existence of mental and physical damage to the applicant’s person and a corresponding causal link between the conduct of the administration and the damage suffered.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43.


title: Case T-183/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 March 2007 — Tokai Europe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Common Customs Tariff — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature — Person not individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/34

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 March 2007 — Tokai Europe GmbH v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-183/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Common Customs Tariff - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature - Person not individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 96/71)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Tokai Europe GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: H. Kroemer, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis and B. Schima, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 28.8.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 16 June 1998 in Case C-226/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Maastricht): criminal proceedings against Johannes Martinus Lemmens (Directive 83/189/EEC - Procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations - Direct effect of the Directive)

text:
C 258/10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.8.98
Community       and   the   Socialist  Federal   Republic    of                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Yugoslavia.
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
( ) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.
 1
                                                                                of 17 June 1998
                                                                     in Case C-243/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Labour Court): Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton v the
                                                                        Revenue Commissioners and Department of Finance (1)
                                                                     (Equal treatment of men and women Ð National civil
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 servants Ð Job-sharing scheme Ð Incremental credit
                       of 16 June 1998                               determined on the basis of the criterion of actual time
                                                                                worked Ð Indirect discrimination)
in Case C-226/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Maastricht): criminal                                        (98/C 258/18)
    proceedings against Johannes Martinus Lemmens (1)
(Directive 83/189/EEC Ð Procedure for the provision of
information in the field of technical standards and
        regulations Ð Direct effect of the Directive)                               (Language of the case: English)
                        (98/C 258/17)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                        In Case C-243/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty by the Labour Court (Ireland) for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       tribunal between Kathleen Hill and Ann Stapleton and the
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Revenue Commissioners, Department of Finance Ð on the
                                                                     interpretation of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of
                                                                     10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the
In Case C-226/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           Member States relating to the application of the principle
of the EC Treaty from the Arrondissementsrechtbank                   of equal pay for men and women (OJ L 45 of 19.2.1975,
(District Court) Maastricht (Netherlands) for a                      p. 19) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that           Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F.
Court against Johannes Martinus Lemmens Ð on the                     Mancini, J. L. Murray (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch,
interpretation of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of                    Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
of information in the field of technical standards and               17 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
regulations (OJ L 109 of 26.4.1983, p. 8) Ð the Court,
composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the
Third and Fifth Chambers, acting for the President, G. F.
Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,
                                                                     Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Council Directive 75/
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly,
                                                                     117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                     the laws of the Member States relating to the application
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                     of the principle of equal pay for men and women are to
16 June 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                     be interpreted as precluding legislation which provides
                                                                     that, where a much higher percentage of female workers
                                                                     than male workers are engaged in job-sharing, job-sharers
Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying
                                                                     who convert to full-time employment are given a point on
down a procedure for the provision of information in the
                                                                     the pay scale applicable to full-time staff which is lower
field of technical standards and regulations is to be
                                                                     than that which those workers previously occupied on the
interpreted as meaning that breach of the obligation
                                                                     pay scale applicable to job-sharing staff due to the fact
imposed by Article 8 thereof to notify a technical
                                                                     that the employer has applied the criterion of service
regulation on breath-analysis apparatus does not have the
                                                                     calculated by the actual length of time worked in a post,
effect of making it impossible for evidence obtained by
                                                                     unless such legislation can be justified by objective criteria
means of such apparatus, authorised in accordance with
                                                                     unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.
regulations which have not been notified, to be relied
upon against an individual charged with driving while
under the influence of alcohol.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 229 of 2.9.1995.
(1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.


title: Case F-61/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2012 — Possanzini v Frontex (Civil service — Temporary staff — Procedure relating to the renewal of a temporary staff contract — Communication to the staff member of the negative opinion of the reporting officer as regards renewal — Act adversely affecting an official — None — Application for annulment of unfavourable comments on performance in annual appraisal reports — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/31

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 23 October 2012 — Possanzini v Frontex
   (Case F-61/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Temporary staff - Procedure relating to the renewal of a temporary staff contract - Communication to the staff member of the negative opinion of the reporting officer as regards renewal - Act adversely affecting an official - None - Application for annulment of unfavourable comments on performance in annual appraisal reports - Action manifestly inadmissible)
   2013/C 46/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Daniele Possanzini (Warsaw, Poland)) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex) (represented by: S. Vuorensola and H. Caniard, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Civil Service — Application for annulment of the decision to revoke the decision to renew the applicant’s contract of employment as a member of the temporary staff and for annulment of some parts of his assessment reports for the period from August 2006 to December 2009

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Possanzini shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011, p. 32.


title: Case F-131/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 December 2007 — Steinmetz v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Amicable settlement — Performance of an agreement — Refusal to reimburse expenditure in connection with a mission — Manifest inadmissibility — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Apportioning costs — Unreasonable and vexatious costs)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/61

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 December 2007 — Steinmetz v Commission
   (Case F-131/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Amicable settlement - Performance of an agreement - Refusal to reimburse expenditure in connection with a mission - Manifest inadmissibility - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Apportioning costs - Unreasonable and vexatious costs)
   (2008/C 51/113)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Robert Steinmetz (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Choucroun, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 21 February 2005 not to give full effect to the amicable settlement reached between the parties in Case T-155/05, which was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Steinmetz is ordered to bear his own costs, with the exception of an amount of EUR 500.

               3.

               In addition to its own costs, the Commission of the European Communities is ordered to bear Mr Steinmetz's costs in the sum of EUR 500.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006, p. 86.


title: Case T-581/11: Action brought on 9 November 2011 — Dimian v OHIM — Bayer Design Fritz Bayer (BABY BAMBOLINA)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/58

      Action brought on 9 November 2011 — Dimian v OHIM — Bayer Design Fritz Bayer (BABY BAMBOLINA)
      (Case T-581/11)
      (2012/C 25/112)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Dimian AG (Nürnberg, Germany) (represented by: P. Pozzi and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayer Design Fritz Bayer GmbH & Co. KG (Michelau, Germany)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 August 2011 in case R 1822/2010-2; and

                  —

                  Order the defendant to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark ‘BABY BAMBOLINA’, for goods in class 28 — Community trade mark registration No 6403927

         Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

         Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

         Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request pursuant to Article 53(1)(c) in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, and in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(2)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

         Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) and in conjunction of Council Regulation No 207/2009, to the extent that the Board of Appeal has excluded the relevance of the mentioned catalogues referring to the period 2008-2009.


title: Case T-362/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Lacamanda Group v EUIPO — Woolley (HENLEY) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU word mark HENLEY — Earlier United Kingdom and EU word marks HENLEYS — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark)

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 September 2016 — Lacamanda Group v EUIPO — Woolley (HENLEY)
   (Case T-362/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU word mark HENLEY - Earlier United Kingdom and EU word marks HENLEYS - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier mark))
   (2016/C 410/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Lacamanda Group Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: C. Scott, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: H. O’Neill, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Nigel Woolley (Braceborough, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2015 (Case R 2255/2012-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between The Lacamanda Group and Nigel Woolley.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 24 April 2015 (Case R 2255/2012-4);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those of The Lacamanda Group Ltd;

               3.

               Orders Mr Nigel Woolley to bear his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-426/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Białymstoku (Republic of Poland) lodged on 14 September 2007 — Dariusz Krawczyński v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Białymstoku

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Białymstoku (Republic of Poland) lodged on 14 September 2007 — Dariusz Krawczyński v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Białymstoku
   (Case C-426/07)
   (2007/C 283/36)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Białymstoku (Regional Administrative Court, Białystok)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dariusz Krawczyński

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Białymstoku (Director of the Białystok Customs Chamber)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Can excise duty introduced in a Member State of the European Community such as that provided for in the Polish Law of 23 January 2004 on Excise Duty (Dz. U No 29, heading 257, as subsequently amended), which is charged on any sale of passenger cars before their initial registration in national territory, be characterised as a form of unlawful turnover tax for the purposes of Article 33(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) (now Article 401 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), in force since 1 January 2007)?
               If the above question is to be answered in the negative:

               2.

               Is excise duty such as that at issue in these proceedings pending before the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Białymstoku, which is charged on any sale of passenger cars before their initial registration in national territory, contrary to Article 90 EC — which prohibits discrimination and the protectionist application of a domestic tax system in favour of similar domestic products — where such duty is not charged on the sale of second hand cars previously registered in the Republic of Poland?


title: Case C-194/15: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino — Italy) — Véronique Baudinet and Others v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Torino (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — Free movement of capital — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Direct taxation — Imposition of dividends — Bilateral agreement on double taxation — Judicial double taxation)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/3

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino — Italy) — Véronique Baudinet and Others v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Torino
   (Case C-194/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Free movement of capital - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Imposition of dividends - Bilateral agreement on double taxation - Judicial double taxation))
   (2016/C 136/04)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Véronique Baudinet, Adrien Boyer, Pauline Boyer, Edouard Boyer

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale I di Torino

      Operative part of the order

   Articles 49 TFEU, 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as the legislation at issue in the main proceedings, under which, when a resident of that Member State, a shareholder in a company established in another Member State, receives from that company dividends taxed in both States, that double taxation is not remedied by the grant in the shareholder’s State of residence of a tax credit at least equal to the amount of tax paid in the State of the source of those dividends.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case T-308/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Ianniello v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Career evaluation report — 2001/2002 evaluation period — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/12

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Ianniello v Commission
   (Case T-308/04) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Career evaluation report - 2001/2002 evaluation period - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2008/C 8/21)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Francesco Ianniello (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the applicant's career evaluation report for the 2001/2002 evaluation period and payment of compensation for the non-material suffered.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision adopting the applicant's career evaluation report for the 2001/2002 evaluation period;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10 2004.


title: Removal from the register of C-96/97

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 7/13
          Removal from the register of C-92/97 (1)                  removal from the register of Case C-121/97: Commission
                          (98/C 7/40)                               of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of
                                                                    Germany.
By order of 11 November 1997, the President of the
Court of Justice of the European Communities has                    (1) OJ C 166, 31. 5. 1997.
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-92/97:
Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
Belgium.
(1) OJ C 108, 5. 4. 1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of C-154/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/43)
                                                                    By order of 8 October 1997, the President of the Court of
          Removal from the register of C-96/97 ( ) 1                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-154/97: Commission
                          (98/C 7/41)
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
By order of 7 October 1997, the President of the Court of           (1) OJ C 212, 12. 7. 1997.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-96/97: Commission of
the European Communities v. French Republic.
(1) OJ C 131, 26. 4. 1997.
                                                                              Removal from the register of C-201/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/44)
                                                                    By order of 21 October 1997, the President of the Court
         Removal from the register of C-121/97 (1)                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
                          (98/C 7/42)                               removal from the register of Case C-201/97: Commission
                                                                    of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              (1) OJ C 212, 12. 7. 1997.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de Cessange, against
                                                                    Council of the European Union (Agents: Martin Bauer and
                      of 21 October 1997                            TheÂreÁse Blanchet) Ð application for the annulment of a
                                                                    decision not to promote Ð the Court of First Instance
in Case T-168/96: Catherine Patronis v. Council of the
                                                                    (Third Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
                      European Union (1)
                                                                    C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave
                                                                    a judgment on 21 October 1997, the operative part of
(Officials Ð Decision not to promote Ð Consideration of
                                                                    which is as follows:
comparative merits Ð Leave on grounds of sickness and
accident Ð Account taken of the work actually done
                 during the reference period)
                          (98/C 7/45)                               1. The application is dismissed.
                                                                    2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 388, 21. 12. 1996.
In Case T-168/96: Catherine Patronis, represented by Jean-
NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseur and Ariane Tornel, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at


title: Case T-157/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014  — Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Period allowed for adaptation of forms of order — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Error of assessment — Adjustment of temporal effects of annulment)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2014 — Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers v Council
   (Case T-157/13) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Period allowed for adaptation of forms of order - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Adjustment of temporal effects of annulment))
   2014/C 282/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd (Kish Island, Iran) (represented by: L. Defalque and C. Malherbe, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. De Elera, M. Bishop and A. Vitro, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of (i) Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 71), in so far as it listed the applicant in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 356, p. 55), in so far as it listed the applicant in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) and (ii) Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413 (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 10), in so far as it maintained the applicant’s listing in Annex II to Decision 2010/413, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation No 267/2012 (OJ 2013 L 156, p. 3), in so far as it maintained the applicant’s listing in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP;

               2)

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it listed Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010;

               3)

               Annuls Council Decision 2013/270/CFSP of 6 June 2013 amending Decision 2010/413, in so far as it maintained the listing of Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd in Annex II to Decision 2010/413;

               4)

               Annuls Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 522/2013 of 6 June 2013 implementing Regulation No 267/2012, in so far as it maintained the listing of Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers Ltd in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012;

               5)

               Orders the effects of Annex II to Decision 2010/413, as amended by Decision 2013/270, and Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012, as amended by Implementing Regulation No 522/2013, to be maintained as regards Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers, until the date of expiry of the period for bringing an appeal stated in the first paragraph of Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union or, if an appeal has been brought within that period, until the dismissal of the appeal;

               6)

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of Sorinet Commercial Trust Bankers.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Joined Cases T-239/04 and T-323/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Italy and Brandt Italia v Commission (State aid — Legislation providing for urgent measures to assist employment for undertakings in difficulties — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and ordering recovery of aid paid)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/26

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Italy and Brandt Italia v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-239/04 and T-323/04) (1)

   (State aid - Legislation providing for urgent measures to assist employment for undertakings in difficulties - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market and ordering recovery of aid paid)
   (2007/C 247/39)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant in Case T-239/04: Italian Republic (represented by: D. Del Gaizo, Agent)

      Applicant in Case T-323/04: Brandt Italia SpA (Verolanuova, Italy) (represented by: M. van Empel, C. Visco and S. Lamarca, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci, C. Giolito and E. Righini, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision 2004/800/EC of 30 March 2004 on the State aid scheme put into effect by Italy providing for urgent measures to assist employment (OJ 2004 L 352, p. 10).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-239/04;

               3.

               Orders Brandt Italia SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in Case T-323/04.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Joined Cases T-265/04, T-292/04 and T-504/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2009 — Tirrenia di Navigazione and Others v Commission (State aid — Maritime transport — Subsidies paid by the Italian authorities to regional undertakings — Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the common market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — New or existing aid — Duty to state reasons — Article 4(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 March 2009 — Tirrenia di Navigazione and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-265/04, T-292/04 and T-504/04) (1)

   (State aid - Maritime transport - Subsidies paid by the Italian authorities to regional undertakings - Decision declaring the aid in part compatible and in part incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - New or existing aid - Duty to state reasons - Article 4(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92)
   2009/C 90/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants in Case T-265/04: Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA, formerly Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA and Adriatica di Navigazione SpA, (Naples, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, A. Franchi and G. Belletti, initially, and G. Roberti and G. Belletti, subsequently, lawyers)

      Applicants in Case T-292/04: Caremar SpA; Toremar SpA (Leghorn (Livorno), Italy); Siremar SpA (Palermo, Italy); and Saremar SpA (Cagliari, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, A. Franchi and G. Belletti, initially, and G. Roberti and G. Belletti, subsequently, lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-504/04: Navigazione Libera del Golfo SpA (Naples, Italy) (represented by: S. Ravenna and A. Abate, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Caremar SpA (represented by: G. Roberti, A. Franchi and G.Belletti, initially, and G. Roberti and G. Belletti, subsquently, lawyers) and the Italian Republic (represented by: M. Fiorilli, Agent)

      Re:

   Annulment in part of the Commission Decision No 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 concerning State aid granted by Italy to the shipping companies Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar (Gruppo Tirrenia) (OJ 2005 L 53, p. 29).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               In Cases T-265/04 and T-292/04, annuls Commission Decision No 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 concerning State aid granted by Italy to the shipping companies Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar (Gruppo Tirrenia);

               2.

               In Case T-504/04, declares that the action has become devoid of purpose;

               3.

               In Case T-265/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Caremar SpA, Siremar SpA, Saremar SpA and Toremar SpA;

               4.

               In Case T-504/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those of Navigazione Libera del Golfo SpA;

               5.

               In Case T-504/04, orders the Italian Republic and Caremar to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239, 25.9.2004.


title: Case C-273/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 5 April 2014  — Pierre Fabre Médicament v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes Publics et de la Réforme de l’État, Ministre des Affaires Sociales et de la Santé

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/23

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 5 April 2014 — Pierre Fabre Médicament v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes Publics et de la Réforme de l’État, Ministre des Affaires Sociales et de la Santé
   (Case C-273/14)
   2014/C 282/29
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pierre Fabre Médicament

      Defendants: Ministre du Budget, des Comptes Publics et de la Réforme de l’État, Ministre des Affaires Sociales et de la Santé

      Question referred

   Do points 3 and 5 of Article 6 of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) apply to decisions removing a proprietary product from the list of medicinal products administered to inpatients in health establishments that may be covered by compulsory health insurance schemes in addition to hospital treatments covered in the context of fixed payments for stays and care determined by diagnosis related group?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 40, p. 8.


title: Case C-124/14: Action brought on 17 March 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/22

         Action brought on 17 March 2014 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-124/14)
   2014/C 175/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Cattabriga and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the Italian Republic, by withholding from National Health Service ‘executive’ staff (namely, doctors) the right to a maximum average working week of 48 hours, and from all National Health Service medical staff the right to 11 consecutive hours of rest per day without guaranteeing them an equivalent period of compensatory rest, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 6 and 17(2) of Directive 2003/88/EC; (1)

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Articles 3 and 6 of Directive 2003/88/EC require that the Member States take the measures necessary to ensure, first, that every worker is entitled to a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour period and, second, that the average working time for each seven-day period, including overtime, does not exceed 48 hours. Derogations from those provisions, although not entirely excluded, are nonetheless subject to specific conditions.
   When transposing Directive 2003/88, the Italian legislature breached those provisions by excluding all National Health Service ‘executive’ doctors from the scope of the rules relating to the maximum weekly working time and all National Health Service medical staff from the rules relating to the daily rest period.
   In particular, the Commission claims that, in the first place, in Italy all doctors who work in the National Health Service are officially classified as ‘executives’ by legislation and by national collective agreements relating to the National Health Service, without necessarily benefitting from executive prerogatives or autonomy over their own working time. In the second place, the Italian authorities have not been able to show that National Health Service medical staff, although excluded from the right to a daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours, none the less benefit from an adequate period of uninterrupted compensatory rest immediately after their period of work has ended.

      (1)  Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9)


title: Case C-417/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Hera Comm Srl v Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Autorità per l'Energia Elettrica il Gas e il Sistema Idrico

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 10 July 2017 — Hera Comm Srl v Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Autorità per l'Energia Elettrica il Gas e il Sistema Idrico
   (Case C-417/17)
   (2017/C 338/08)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hera Comm Srl

      Defendants: Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Autorità per l'Energia Elettrica il Gas e il Sistema Idrico

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the ‘rationale’ of ‘general’ Directive No 2005/29/EC, (1) namely that of providing a ‘safety net’ for consumer protection, and, in particular, recital 10, Article 3(4) and Article 5(3) of the directive preclude a national measure which brings within the scope of general Directive 2005/29/EC on improper commercial practices the evaluation of performance of the specific obligations laid down by sectoral Directives 2009/72/EC (2) and 2009/73/EC (3) for consumer protection, thereby excluding action by the sectoral authority — in this case the AEEGSI — to penalise infringements of the sectoral directive in all cases in which the prerequisites establishing an improper or unfair commercial practice may also be satisfied?

               2.

               Must the speciality principle established by Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be construed as governing relations between legislative systems (general systems and sectoral systems), or relations between provisions (general provisions and special provisions) or relations between independent authorities responsible for regulating and monitoring the relevant sectors?

               3.

               Can the concept of ‘conflict’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be regarded as applicable only in circumstances in which there is a radical contradiction in law between the provisions of the legislation on improper commercial practices and the other provisions derived from EU law that govern specific aspects of commercial practices, or is it sufficient that the latter provisions lay down rules that differ from the provisions on improper commercial practices, such as to give rise to a conflict of laws in a specific case?

               4.

               Does the term ‘Community rules’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC relate solely to the provisions contained in European regulations and directives and to the provisions directly transposing them, or does it also encompass the legislative and regulatory provisions implementing principles of EU law?

               5.

               Does the ‘speciality’ principle established in recital 10 and Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC, and Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC and Article 41 of Directive 2009/73/EC as well, preclude an interpretation of the corresponding national transposing provisions to the effect that, whenever, in a regulated sector containing sectoral ‘consumer’ rules, in which the sectoral authority is empowered to regulate and impose penalties, conduct that could be covered by the term ‘aggressive practice’ within the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC, or the term ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ within the meaning of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC, is identified, the general rules on improper practices must always apply, even where there are sectoral rules adopted to protect (such) consumers and based on provisions of EU law that fully regulate those same ‘aggressive practices’ and practices ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ or, at any rate, those same ‘improper/unfair practices’?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2006 concerning unfair business — to — consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘unfair commercial practices directives’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

      (2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

      (3)  Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94).