title: Case C-537/08 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH v Freistaat Thüringen, Federal Republic of Germany, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 2010 — Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH v Freistaat Thüringen, Federal Republic of Germany, European Commission
   (Case C-537/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Principles of legal certainty and of the protection of legitimate expectations)
   2011/C 55/04
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (represented by: M. Schütte, S. Zühlke and P. Werner, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Freistaat Thüringen (represented by: A. Weitbrecht and M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwälte), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and W. D. Plessing, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and K. Gross, acting as Agents, assisted by C. Koenig, professor)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 24 September 2008 in Case T-20/03 Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed an action for the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (OJ 2003 L 227, p. 12), in so far as that decision concerns the financial assistance granted to Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH — Infringement of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Kahla Thüringen Porzellan GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-178/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Policolor — Earlier EU figurative mark ProfiColor — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Policolor v EUIPO — CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt (Policolor)
   (Case T-178/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Policolor - Earlier EU figurative mark ProfiColor - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 161/37)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Policolor SA (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: M. Comanescu, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt GmbH & Co. KG (Düren-Merken, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 January 2016 (Case R 346/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between CWS-Lackfabrik Conrad W. Schmidt and Policolor.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Policolor SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 September 1999 in Case C-310/97 P: Commission of the European Communities v AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and Others (Appeal - Effects in relation to third parties of a judgment annulling a measure)

text:
C 366/2                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         18.12.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 14 September 1999                                                             (First Chamber)
in Case C-310/97 P: Commission of the European Com-                                              of 14 September 1999
 munities v AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and Others (1)
                                                                          in Case C-170/98: Commission of the European Communi-
(Appeal — Effects in relation to third parties of a judgment                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                       annulling a measure)
                                                                          (Failure to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EEC)
                         (1999/C 366/02)                                  No 4055/86 — Freedom to provide services — Maritime
                                                                                transport)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                                    (1999/C 366/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-310/97 P: Commission of the European Communi-
ties (Agent: W. Wils) — appeal against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Chamber, Extended Composition) of 10 July 1997 in Case                                        in the European Court Reports)
T-227/95 AssiDomän Kraft Products and Others v Com-
mission [1997] ECR II-1185, seeking to have that judgment                 In Case C-170/98: Commission of the European Communities
set aside, the other party to the proceedings being AssiDomän             (Agents: Frank Benyon and Bernard Mongin) v Kingdom of
Kraft Products AB, established in Stockholm, Sweden, Igge-
                                                                          Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) — application for a declaration
sunds Bruk AB, established in Ornsköldsvik, Sweden, Korsnäs               that, by failing either to adjust the agreement with the Republic
AB, established in Gävle, Sweden, MoDo Paper AB, established              of Zaire in such a way as to provide for fair, free and
in Ornsköldsvik, Sweden, Södra Cell AB, established in Växjö,
                                                                          non-discriminatory access by Community nationals to the
Sweden, Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB, established in Falun,             cargo shares due to Belgium or to denounce that agreement,
Sweden, Svenska Cellulosa AB, established in Sundsvall,
                                                                          the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
Sweden, represented by J.E. Pheasant, Solicitor, with an address
                                                                          under Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &                     1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to
Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́-
                                                                          maritime transport between Member States and between
guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet,
                                                                          Member States and third countries (OJ 1986 L 378, p. 1), in
G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of the Chambers, J.C. Moitin-           particular Articles 3 and 4(1) thereof — the Court (First
ho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward,
                                                                          Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and
                                                                          D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Per-
R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate                    gola, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judg-
General; A. Rühl , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                          ment on 14 September 1999, in which it:
has given a judgment on 14 September 1999, in which it:
                                                                          1. Declares that, by failing either to adjust the agreement with the
1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 July          Republic of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo)
    1997 in Case T-227/95 AssiDomän Kraft Products and Others                 in such a way as to provide for fair, free and non-discriminatory
    v Commission;                                                             access by Community nationals to the cargo shares due to
                                                                              Belgium or to denounce that agreement, the Kingdom of Belgium
2. Dismisses the application for annulment lodged on 15 December              has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Regulation (EEC)
    1995 by AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and Others before the                 No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of
    Court of First Instance;                                                  freedom to provide services to maritime transport between
                                                                              Member States and between Member States and third countries,
3. Orders AssiDomän Kraft Products AB and the other respondents               in particular Articles 3 and 4(1) thereof;
    to bear all the costs incurred before the Court of First Instance
    and the Court of Justice.                                             2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ No C 318 of 18.10.1997.                                            (1) OJ No C 258 of 15.8.1998.


title: Case T-167/11: Order of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/27

         Order of the General Court of 16 January 2013 — Centre national de la recherche scientifique v Commission
   (Case T-167/11) (1)

   2013/C 71/45
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case T-217/16: Order of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China or consigned from Malaysia — Regulation repealing definitive anti-dumping duties — Act not of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/32

         Order of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Internacional de Productos Metálicos v Commission
   (Case T-217/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China or consigned from Malaysia - Regulation repealing definitive anti-dumping duties - Act not of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 078/44)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA (Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain) (represented by: C. Cañizares Pacheco, E. Tejedor de la Fuente and A. Monreal Lasheras, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and G. Luengo, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking annulment of Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016 repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2016, L 52, p. 24).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Internacional de Productos Metálicos, SA is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case T-125/14: Order of the General Court of 21 October 2014  — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v OHIM — Gap (ITM) (GAPPol) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Revocation of the contested decision — Action which has become devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/33

         Order of the General Court of 21 October 2014 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v OHIM — Gap (ITM) (GAPPol)
   (Case T-125/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Revocation of the contested decision - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 026/42)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Gap (ITM), Inc. (San Francisco, California, United States) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 December 2014 (Case R 686/2013-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Gap (ITM), Inc. and PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska and Gap (ITM), Inc.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 September 1999 in Case T-141/97: Bernard Yasse v European Investment Bank (Officials - Removal from post - Articles 1, 4 and 40 of the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank - Manifest error of assessment of the facts - Rights of the defence - Essential procedural requirements - Principle of proportionality - Counterclaim - Rejection of an application for measures of inquiry)

text:
C 333/24                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.11.1999
1. Annuls the decision of the European Investment Bank of                  3. Dismisses as inadmissible the application for damages brought
     31 January 1997 by which the applicant was removed from his                by the European Investment Bank;
     post without loss of the severance grant;
                                                                           4. Orders the applicant to pay all of the costs.
2. Orders the European Investment Bank to pay to the applicant
     the arrears of the remuneration which he should have received
     since his dismissal;                                                  (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
3. Dismisses the applications for compensation brought by the
     applicant;
4. Dismisses as inadmissible the application for damages brought
     by the European Investment Bank;
5. Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and
     to pay the costs of the applicant.                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.                                                                      of 28 September 1999
                                                                           in Case T-254/97, Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbH Chem-
                                                                               nitz v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries
                                                                           — Application for import licences — Case of hardship
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 — Transitional measures — Regulation (EEC) No 404/93)
                       of 28 September 1999
                                                                                (1999/C 333/59)
in Case T-141/97: Bernard Yasse v European Investment
                                Bank (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Officials — Removal from post — Articles 1, 4 and 40 of
the Staff Regulations of the European Investment Bank                      In Case T-254/97: Fruchthandelsgesellschaft mbh Chemnitz,
— Manifest error of assessment of the facts — Rights of the                established in Chemnitz (Germany), represented by Jürgen
defence — Essential procedural requirements — Principle                    Mielke and Thorsten W. Albrecht, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg
of proportionality — Counterclaim — Rejection of an                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
               application for measures of inquiry)                        of 34A Rue Philippe II, v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agents: Klaus-Dieter Borchardt and Hubert van
                           (1999/C 333/58)                                 Vliet), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Rosario Silva
                                                                           de Lapuerta) and French Republic (Agent: Kareen Rispal-
                                                                           Bellanger) — Application for the annulment of the Com-
                     (Language of the case: French)                        mission Decision (VI/6251/97/DE) of 9 July 1997 rejecting
                                                                           the applicant’s request for the grant of import licences under
                                                                           the transitional measures provided for in Article 30 of Council
In Case T-141/97: Bernard Yasse, a servant of the European                 Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the
Investment Bank, residing at Fauvillers (Belgium), represented             common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ 1993
initially by Pascale Delvaux de Fenffe and Pierre-Paul Van                 L 47, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber),
Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, and subsequently by Olivier                composed of J.D. Cooke, President and R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas
Schmitz and Catherine Burton, of the Neufchateau Bar, 14                   and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for
Chaussée de Houffalize, Bastogne (Belgium), v European                     the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September 1999, in
Investment Bank (Agents: Giannangelo Marchegiani and                       which it:
Georges Vandersanden) — application, first, for annulment of
the decision of the European Investment Bank of 31 January
                                                                           1. Dismisses the application;
1997, by which the applicant was removed from his post
without loss of his severance grant, and for reinstatement of
the applicant, and, second, for an order requiring the Bank to             2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs as well as the costs of
compensate the applicant — the Court of First Instance                          the Commission;
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President, and
R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Palacio González,          3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic to bear
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                       their own costs.
28 September 1999, in which it:
1. Dismisses the action;                                                   (1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.
2. Dismisses the applications for compensation brought by the
     applicant;


17.7.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 204/37
        Removal from the register of Case C-27/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-7/99 P (1)
                          (1999/C 204/86)                                                     (1999/C 204/90)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-27/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       the register of Case C-7/99 P: Franco Campoli v Commission
from the Tribunale di Genova): Ligure Piemontese SpA (Società
                                                                       of the European Communities.
d’Intermediazione Mobiliare) v Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
( 1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-326/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/87)                                                     (1999/C 204/91)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               By order of 6 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-28/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the Tribunale di Genova): SO.ME.FI Srl v Amministra-              the register of Case C-326/98: Commission of the European
zione delle Finanze dello Stato.                                       Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.                                               (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-29/97 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-320/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/88)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/92)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-29/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       By order of 7 May 1999 the President of the Third Chamber
from the Tribunale di Genova): Società Anonima Immobiliare             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
Allessandro Srl (SAIA) v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello           ordered the removal from the register of Case C-320/98:
Stato.                                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                       Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-30/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/89)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-73/98 (1)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                      (1999/C 204/93)
the register of Case C-30/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): SVIN Servizi SpA v               By order of 10 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.                             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case C-73/98: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.


title: Case T-392/08: Action brought on 19 September 2008 — AEPI v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/50

         Action brought on 19 September 2008 — AEPI v Commission
   (Case T-392/08)
   (2008/C 301/85)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Elleniki Etairia pros Prostasia tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (Greek Society for the Protection of Intellectual Property) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Xsanthopoulos, T. Asproyerakis-Grivas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               allow the present application admissible in its entirety;

               —

               annul in its entirety the contested decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 16 July 2008 in Case COMP/C2/38.698-CISAC, No E (3435) final, relating to a procedure under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs and the fees of the applicant's lawyers.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By this application the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 16 July 2008 in Case COMP/C2/38.698-CISAC, No E (3435) final, in so far as the Commission decided that the applicant was infringing Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA by using, in representation agreements with other societies, membership restrictions contained in Article 11(2) of the model contract of the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (‘CISAC model contract’) or by the de facto application of restrictions on admitting members and coordination of territorial delineation in a way which limits a licence to the domestic territory of each collecting society.
   The applicant puts forward the following grounds for annulment:
   First, the applicant claims that the contested decision is based on a mistaken assessment of the facts and of the general de facto situation, the evidence and the subjective elements of the infringement.
   Secondly, the applicant claims that its right to a prior hearing was infringed and thirdly, that Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA were wrongly applied by reason of the fact that the applicant was condemned for a non-existent infringement. In particular, it submits that with the signature of territorial clauses there was no infringement of competition but that those clauses are necessary to ensure to those entitled proper management of their rights in the country in which each contracting society operates. In addition, the applicant maintains that the Court of Justice of the European Communities has accepted that clauses of territorial exclusivity in reciprocal representation agreements do not infringe competition.
   Fourthly, the applicant claims that the contested decision does not take account of the fact that in Community law intellectual property and intellectual and artistic works are not the same as other goods and services and wrongly subjects the facts to the legal rule applicable to the latter.
   Fifthly, the applicant maintains that the Commission has infringed Article 151 EC, introducing the principle of the cultural exception, according to which the Commission must, in any action, take cultural aspects into account in order to respect and to promote the diversity of the cultures of the Community.
   Sixthly, the applicant submits that the fact that the question of fault did not enter into the examination of the alleged infringement of Article 81 EC constitutes a misapplication of the legal rule and a clear failure to give reasons for the contested decision.
   Seventhly, the applicant considers that the contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality, since European intellectual property societies are not of the same size, as well as the principle of impartiality, because it was adopted following a preliminary procedure that was not fair. Furthermore, the applicant maintains that the existence of serious contradictions renders the decision defective and irrational. Moreover, the contested decision, in the misleading guise, according to the applicant, of facilitating the obtaining of licences to use music via cable, satellite or on the internet, in reality is aimed at the mutual annihilation of intellectual property societies, by distorting healthy competition, laying down unequal market terms and creating inevitable clashes between those societies. Lastly, the contested decision, directly misconstrues, in the applicant's view, Directive 93/83/EEC (1) and infringes the international Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works, to which the European Union has acceded.

      (1)  Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15).


title: Case C-526/15: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel — Belgium) — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Inadmissibility — Transportation of persons by motor vehicles — Private drivers using a smart phone application to connect them to people wishing to travel within urban areas — Requirement to hold an operating permit)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/6

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 October 2016 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel — Belgium) — Uber Belgium BVBA v Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV
   (Case C-526/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Inadmissibility - Transportation of persons by motor vehicles - Private drivers using a smart phone application to connect them to people wishing to travel within urban areas - Requirement to hold an operating permit))
   (2017/C 063/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Uber Belgium BVBA

      Defendant: Taxi Radio Bruxellois NV

      in the presence of: Uber International BV, Rasier Operations BV, Uber BV, Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest, Belgische Federatie van Taxis, Nationale Groepering van Ondernemingen met Taxi — and Locatievoertuigen met Chauffeur VZW

      Operative part of the order

   The request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige rechtbank van koophandel Brussel (Dutch-language Commercial Court, Brussels, Belgium), by decision of 23 September 2015, is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 429, 21.12.2015.


title: Removal from the register of T-246/97

text:
C 209/46         EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                             4.7.98
       Removal from the register of T-246/97 (1)               Communities ordered the removal from the register of
                   (98/C 209/94)                               Case T-246/97, Sonja Vermeylen v. Commission of the
                                                               European Communities.
            (Language of the case: French)
By order of 4 May 1998, the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European         (1) OJ C 331, 1.11.1997.


title: Case C-507/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd v Petersime NV

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 24 September 2015 — Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd v Petersime NV
   (Case C-507/15)
   (2015/C 414/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd

      Defendant: Petersime NV

      Question referred

   Is the Belgian Handelsagentuurwet, (1) which transposes the Commercial Agency Directive into Belgian national law, in accordance with that Directive and/or the provisions of the Association Agreement which has as its express aim the accession of Turkey to the European Union and/or the obligations between Turkey and the European Union to eliminate restrictions with regard to the free movement of services between them, when that Belgian Handelsagentuurwet provides that it only applies to commercial agents whose principal place of business is in Belgium, and does not apply when a principal established in Belgium and an agent established in Turkey have explicitly chosen Belgian law?

      (1)  Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17).


title: Case T-31/02: Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Japan Tobacco, Inc. and JT International S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.5.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 109/55
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:            The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     Annul the defendant’s decision of 11 June 2001 to reset            —     annul the decisions taken by the Commission in relation
      at zero the applicant’s tally of promotion points after his              to commencing proceedings before the United States
      promotion in 2000;                                                       District Court for the Eastern District of New York, with
                                                                               Docket Number CV-02-0164, on 9 January 2002, in the
                                                                               name of the European Community against the applicants;
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order that the Commission pay the costs of the present
                                                                               proceedings, including those of the applicants and any
                                                                               intervening parties.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant objects to the decision of the European Parlia-
ment to reset at zero the applicant’s stock of promotion points
following his promotion in 2000, thereby preventing the
                                                                         The applicants are the defendants in legal proceedings brought
applicant from carrying over to his new grade the promotion
                                                                         by the European Commission before a United States Court, in
points that he acquired over and above the relevant threshold
                                                                         which it is seeking damages in respect of allegedly unpaid
for promotion.
                                                                         customs duties and VAT, and relief in respect to other
                                                                         economic and non-economic injuries arising therefrom. The
                                                                         payment of these customs duties and VAT has allegedly been
The resetting at zero is the result of a transitional scheme prior       avoided by the smuggling of cigarettes into the European
to the implementation of a new promotion system in the                   Union. This is the third time that the European Commission
European Parliament. Under that transitional scheme the tally            has commenced such proceedings (1). In the current proceed-
of promotion points is automatically reset at zero following             ings, the Commission is also acting as agent for Member States
a promotion, whereas the definitive scheme provides that                 in the recovery of these taxes allegedly owed to them.
promotion points acquired over and above the relevant
threshold are carried over to the new grade.
                                                                         The grounds and arguments are similar to those arising in Case
                                                                         T-260/01 (2).
According to the applicant, the contested decision infringes
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations as well as the principle
prohibiting discrimination.                                              (1) The decision to commence the first proceedings is being contested
                                                                             in Case T-379/00 (OJ C 79 of 10..3.2001) and the decision to
                                                                             commence the second proceedings in Cases T-260/01 and
                                                                             T-272/01 (OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002, p. 39 and p. 45).
                                                                         (2) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002, p. 39.
Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Japan Tobacco,
Inc. and JT International S.A. against the Commission of
                 the European Communities                                Action brought on 14 February 2002 by José Cuenda
                                                                             Guijarro against the Council of the European Union
                         (Case T-31/02)
                                                                                (Case T-32/02)
                       (2002/C 109/106)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/107)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               An action against the Council of the European Union was
European Communities on 15 February 2002 by Japan                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Tobacco, Inc. and JT International S.A., represented by                  Communities on 14 February 2002 by José Cuenda Guijarro,
Mr Onno W. Brouwer and Mr Paul Lomas of Freshfields                      residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, lawyer,
Bruckhaus Deringer, London (United Kingdom).                             with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case F-17/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 November 2010 — Vereecken v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/44

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 18 November 2010 — Vereecken v Commission
   (Case F-17/06) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 13/89
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006, p. 39.


title: Joined Cases T-707/13 and T-709/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word marks BE HAPPY — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 April 2015 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)
   (Joined Cases T-707/13 and T-709/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word marks BE HAPPY - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 52(1)(a) and Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 198/48)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Steinbeck GmbH (Fulda, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG (Frankenthal, Germany) (represented by: S. Henn and S. Tepel, lawyers)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against the decisions of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 October 2013 (Cases R 31/2013-1 and R 32/2013-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG and Steinbeck GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Steinbeck GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Action brought on 23 November 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-360/95)

text:
20 . 1 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 16/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura di               The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pordenone by order of that court of 18 October 1995 in the
 Case of Tommaso Morellato and Usl No 11 , Pordenone                 1 , declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or,
                        ( Case C-358/95 )                                in the alternative, communicate, within the prescribed
                           ( 96/C 16/13                                  period, the laws, regulations or administrative
                                                                         provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                         91/371 /EEC ( J ) of 20 June 1991 on the implementation
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   of the Agreement between the European Economic
European Communities by an order of the Pretura                          Community and the Swiss Confederation concerning
( Magistrates Court), Pordenone, of 18 October 1995 ,                    direct insurance other than life assurance, the Kingdom
which was received at the Court Registry on 21 November                  of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Tommaso                   Articles 5 and 189 of the Treaty establishing the
Morellato v. Usl No 11 , Pordenone :
                                                                         European Communitiy;
— are Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty establishing the EEC
                                                                     2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .
    to be interpreted as precluding the Italian legislation on
    the working and marketing of cereals, flour, bread and
    pasta ( Law No 480 of 4 July 1967), in so far as such            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    legislation prohibits the sale of deep-frozen special
    wholemeal bread having:                                          The mandatory nature of the third paragraph of Article 189
                                                                     and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires
    — a moisture content in excess of the percentages                Member States to adopt the appropriate measures in order
         referred to in Article 16 ,                                 to ensure compliance with the obligations stemming from
    — an ash content lower than that prescribed by                   the Directives, observing the time limits laid down therein .
         Article 16 in conjunction with Article 7 ( 3 ),             That period expired on 4 July 1993 without the Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain having brought into force the necessary provisions.
    — an admixture of bran, which is not a permitted
         ingredient,                                                 (') OJ No L 205 , 27. 7. 1991 , p . 48 .
    accordingly, are those legislative provisions to be
    regarded as a quantitative restriction or a measure
    having equivalent effect thereto within the meaning of
    Article 30 ?
— In the event of an affirmative answer to that question, is         Action brought on 23 November 1995 by the Commission
    the Italian State, in circumstances such as those of this        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
    case, entitled to rely on the derogation provided for in                                        Spain
    Article 36 of the EC Treaty, for the purpose of protecting
    public health ?                                                                          Case C-361/95 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 16/15 )
— Is the Italian legislation to be disapplied by the Italian
    courts ?
                                                                     An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
— Is the free movement on Italian territory of bread                 23 November 1995 by the Commission of the European
    produced in France and described as aforesaid to be              Communities, represented by D. Gouloussis and B. Vila
    permitted ?                                                      Costa, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the office of C. Gômez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                     Centre, Kirchberg Plateau .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
Action brought on 23 November 1995 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                Spain
                                                                     1 , declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or,
                                                                         in the alternative, communicate, within the prescribed
                        ( Case C-360/95                                  period, the laws, regulations or administrative
                           ( 96/C 16/14 )                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                         92/49/EEC (*) of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      to direct insurance other than life assurance, the
23 November 1995 by the Commission of the European                       Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
Communities, represented by D. Gouloussis and B. Vila                    under Articles 5 and 189 of the Treaty establishing the
Costa, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                  European Community;
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg Plateau .                                          2 , order the defendant to pay the costs .


title: Case F-38/12: Action brought on 19th March 2012 — ZZ v FRA

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/37

         Action brought on 19th March 2012 — ZZ v FRA
   (Case F-38/12)
   2012/C 138/88
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision not to renew the Appellant's contract and of the decision to transfer the Appellant to another department and the compensation of both moral and material prejudices.

      Form of order sought

               —

               The annulment of the decision not to renew the Applicant's contract;

               —

               the annulment of the decision to transfer the Applicant's to another department;

               —

               the compensation of the Applicant's material prejudice estimated at 1 320 Euro par month from September 2012, to which be added late interest at the key rate of the European Central Bank plus two percentage points;

               —

               the compensation of the Applicant's moral prejudice estimated at 50 000 Euros;

               —

               the order for the Defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case F-145/07: Action brought on 27 December 2007 — Bosman v Council

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/38

         Action brought on 27 December 2007 — Bosman v Council
   (Case F-145/07)
   (2008/C 79/74)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Pierre Bosman (Dendermondsesteenweg, Belgium) (represented by: T. Bontinck and P.S. Gennari Curlo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the individual decision of 28 February 2007 refusing the household allowance for the purposes of calculating retirement pension rights.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the statement of 27 February 2007 determining retirement pension rights;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the household allowance applied for as from 1 March 2007;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 June 1998 in Case T-172/95: Valentino Chesi and Others v Council of the European Union (Officials - Pensions - Weighting - Change of capital - Retroactive effect - Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 3161/94 - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Act adversely affecting an official)

text:
C 234/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 9 June 1998                                                     of 9 June 1998
in Case T-172/95: Valentino Chesi and Others v Council              in Case T-173/95: Erich Biedermann and Others v Court
                  of the European Union (1)                                 of Auditors of the European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Pensions Ð Weighting Ð Change of capital
(Officials Ð Pensions Ð Weighting Ð Change of capital
                                                                    Ð Retroactive effect Ð Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom)
Ð Retroactive effect Ð Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom)
                                                                    No 3161/94 Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð
No 3161/94 Ð Action for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð
                                                                                Act adversely affecting an official)
             Act adversely affecting an official)
                                                                                (98/C 234/47)
                        (98/C 234/46)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-173/95: Erich Biedermann, Walter Hedderich
                                                                    and Alfred Wienrich, former officials of the Court of
In Case T-172/95: Valentino Chesi, Margot Jost and Ralph            Auditors, residing respectively at Holzkirchen, at Dreieich
Loebisch, former officials of the the Council of the                and at Karlsruhe (Germany), represented by Georges
European Union, residing respectively at Munich, at                 Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
Koblenz and at Berg (Germany), represented by Georges               address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an           Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Court of
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of                 Auditors of the European Communities (Agents: Jean-
Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Council of            Marie Stenier, Jan Inghelram and Paolo Giusta), supported
the European Union (Agents: initially, Yves Cretien,                by Council of the European Union (Agents: initially, Yves
Antonio Lucidi and Diego Canga Fano and, subsequently,              Cretien, Antonio Lucidi and Diego Canga Fano and,
Mr Lucidi and Mr Canga Fano alone), supported by                    subsequently, Mr Lucidi and Mr Canga Fano alone),
Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Sabine Maass,                  Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: Sabine Maass,
Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke) and Kingdom of the                     Ernst Röder and Bernd Kloke) and Kingdom of the
Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra and Johannes van den             Netherlands (Agents: Marc Fierstra and Johannes van den
Oosterkamp) Ð application, first, for annulment of the              Oosterkamp) Ð application, first, for annulment of the
applicants' pension statements for December 1994,                   applicants' pension statements for December 1994,
inasmuch as those statements are drawn up on the basis of           inasmuch as those statements are drawn up on the basis of
Council Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 3161/94 of                Council Regulation (ECSC, EC, Euratom) No 3161/94 of
19 December 1994 adjusting, with effect from 1 July                 19 December 1994 adjusting, with effect from 1 July
1994, the remuneration and pensions of officials (OJ L 335          1994, the remuneration and pensions of officials (OJ
of 23.12.1994, p. 1) and, second, for reinstatement of              L 335 of 23.12.1994, p. 1) and, second, for reinstatement
the applicants' pension rights in full, weighted, with effect       of the applicants' pension rights in full, weighted, with
from 3 October 1990, at the rate fixed by reference to the          effect from 3 October 1990 in the case of the applicants
cost of living in Berlin, and for default interest at the           Hedderich and Wienrich and with effect from 1 January
annual rate of 10 % Ð the Court of First Instance (Third            1991 in the case of the applicant Biedermann, at the rate
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and C. P.          fixed by reference to the cost of living in Berlin, and for
BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given        default interest at the annual rate of 10 % Ð the Court
a judgment on 9 June 1998, in which it:                             of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: B.
                                                                    Vesterdorf, President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki,
                                                                    Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 June
                                                                    1998, in which it:
1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
                                                                    1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                    2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995.


title: Case C-686/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici — Croatia) — Vodoopskrba i odvodnja d.o.o. v Željka Klafurić (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Directive 2000/60/EC — Framework for an EU water policy — Recovery of the costs of services connected with water use — Calculation of the amount due from the consumer — Variable component related to actual consumption and fixed component independent of that consumption)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/6

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici — Croatia) — Vodoopskrba i odvodnja d.o.o. v Željka Klafurić
   (Case C-686/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 2000/60/EC - Framework for an EU water policy - Recovery of the costs of services connected with water use - Calculation of the amount due from the consumer - Variable component related to actual consumption and fixed component independent of that consumption))
   (2017/C 038/08)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Općinski sud u Velikoj Gorici

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vodoopskrba i odvodnja d.o.o.

      Defendant: Željka Klafurić

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the price of water services invoiced to the consumer includes not only a variable component calculated according to the volume of water actually consumed by the person concerned, but also a fixed component which is not connected with that volume.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


22 . 6 . 96         I EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 180/27
      Removal from the register of Case C-294/94 ( x )                        Removal from the register of Case C-230/95 (')
                           ( 96/C 180/64 )                                                           96/C 180/68 )
By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of               By order of 19 March 19 96 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-294/94 ( reference for a                    from the register of Case C-230/95 : Council of the European
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de              Union v . European Parliament.
la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal proceedings against Luis
Carlos Quintanilha .                                                    (>) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-256/95 ( ] )
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/69 )
       Removal from the register of Case C-310/94 ( 1 )                 By order of 19 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                            ( 96/C 180/65 )                             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-256/95 : Commission of the
By order of 16 January 1996 , the President of the Second               European Communities v. French Republic .
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case               (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
C-310/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Tribunal de Commerce de Saintes ): Garage Ardon SA,
Bernard Martin — Garage Colin-Martin, Relais de
Saintonge SARL and Bernard Menet SARL v . Garage                              Removal from the register of Case C-318/95 ( )
Trabisco SA .
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/70
C ) OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                       By order of 14 March 1996 , thue President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-318/95 : Commission of
                                                                        European Communities v. Ireland .
        Removal from the register of Case C-20/95 ( )                   (•) OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                            ( 96/C 180/66 )
By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                       Removal from the register of Case C-374/95 (')
 from the register of Case C-20/95 ( reference for a                                                  96/C 180/71
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Central de lo Penal de
 la Audiencia Nacional ): criminal proceedings against Oscar            By order of 12 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
Weg.                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 (') OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                                         from the register of Case C-374/95 ( reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Southampton Industrial
                                                                        Tribunal ): James Paul Barker v . Service Children's
                                                                         Schools .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
        Removal from the register of Case C-33/95 ()
                             ( 96/C 180/67 )
 By order of 20 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-381/95 ( )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-33/95 ( reference for a                                                ( 96/C 180/72 )
 preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de
 Saint-Nazaire ): SARL Polypièces v. Directeur des Services              By order of 27 March 1996 , the President of the Court of
 Fiscaux de Loire-Atlantique .                                          Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-381 /95 : Commission of
 (') OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                         European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Case C-74/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret by order of that Court of 14 February 2003 in the case of SmithKline Beecham plc against Lægemiddelstyrelsen; interveners being Synthon BV and Genthon BV

text:
26.4.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 101/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       much larger amount, against which the Commission had
                                                                                publicly advised but which was adopted in other Member
                                                                                States such as France, Germany or Italy. It can in no
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 11 December                              way be maintained that Spanish operators enjoyed an
      2002 ( 1), in so far as it finds that the subsidising of loans              economic advantage to which those of other Member
      and guarantees for owners of agricultural holdings and                      States did not have access.
      the extension of tax benefits to the transfer of agricultural
      land and holdings constitute State aid incompatible with
      the Treaty;                                                          —      (In the alternative) If State aid is found to exist, it is
                                                                                compatible with the common market in the light of
                                                                                Article 87(2)(b) EC: neither the objective nor the result of
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                      the alleged aid was to cover loss suffered by the farmer:
                                                                                the intention was to make it easier for him to obtain a
                                                                                loan from financial institutions so that the loans would
                                                                                make up for the lack of liquidity brought about by the
                                                                                disproportionate increase in costs caused by the steep
                                                                                rises in fuel prices. If, following the Commission’s rec-
                                                                                ommendation not to reduce the special tax on fuel oils
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   or value added tax, no alternative measures were adopted,
                                                                                Spanish farmers would become less competitive in their
                                                                                trade by comparison with States which implemented
                                                                                permitted, although not recommended, tax reductions.
(The extension of certain tax benefits to transfers of land)               —      (In the alternative) Compatibility of the measures in the
                                                                                light of Article 87(3)(c) EC.
—     This does not constitute State aid since certain undertak-
      ings or the production of certain goods are not specifically
      favoured: the measure entails a lower tax burden for the             (1 ) Relating to measures taken by Spain to support agriculture
      seller of the land and has an impact on the owner (farmer)                following the fuel price increase.
      purchasing land: not as to the amount but as to the
      greater availability of land for sale because of the lower
      capital gains tax charge for the seller.
—     (in the alternative) The aid is compatible with the
      Community guidelines for State aid in the agricultural
      sector: A farmer who invests in the acquisition of land,
      and is the owner of a priority holding, by definition
      satisfies the requirements set out in point 4.1 of the
      Community guidelines as regards the economic viability
      of the holding and the occupational skill required for the           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Østre Landsret
      grant of structural aid cofinanced by the EU under the               by order of that Court of 14 February 2003 in the case of
      Regulation on improving the efficiency of agricultural               SmithKline Beecham plc against Lægemiddelstyrelsen;
      structures in force at the material time.                                    interveners being Synthon BV and Genthon BV
                                                                                (Case C-74/03)
(The subsidising of loans and guarantees for owners of
agricultural holdings                                                                                (2003/C 101/35)
—     This does not constitute State aid within the meaning of
      Article 87 EC since it does not affect trade between
      Member States: The Spanish measure entailing the sub-
      sidising of loans was actually symbolic in the face of a             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      sector which felt that its economic viability was seriously          European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret (Eastern
      threatened by the exceptional fuel-price increase. It is             Regional Court) of 14 February 2003, received at the Court
      paradoxical that a palliative measure of such a slight               Registry on 19 February 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
      unitary significance should give rise to a decision of               case of SmithKline Beecham plc against Lægemiddelstyrelsen
      incompatibility with the common market when it was                   (Danish Medicinal Products Administration); interveners being
      adopted as an alternative to a reduction in taxes of a               Synthon BV and Genthon BV on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 101/22                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        26.4.2003
Q ues ti o n 1                                                                Pleas in law and main arguments
Is it compatible with point 8(a)(iii) of Article 4 of the                     Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
First Medicinal Products Directive (Directive 65/65/EEC ( 1), as              the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
amended) for a product to be authorised under the abridged                    implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
application procedure when a salt of the active substance in                  period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
the product is changed from the one used in the reference                     expired on 17 July 2001 without Ireland having enacted the
product?                                                                      provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to
                                                                              in the conclusions of the Commission.
Q ues ti o n 2                                                                (1 ) OJ L 201 of 17.7.1998, p. 88.
Can the abridged application procedure be used when an
applicant, on its own initiative or at the request of national
health authorities, submits additional documentation in the
form of certain pharmacological or toxicological tests or
clinical trials with a view to demonstrating that the product is
‘essentially similar to’ the reference product?                               Action brought on 20 February 2003 by the Commission
                                                                              of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany
( 1) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-
     mation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Adminis-
     trative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ B 22                                  (Case C-77/03)
     of 9.2.1965, p. 369).
                                                                                (2003/C 101/37)
                                                                              An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                              brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Action brought on 19 February 2003 by the Commission                          ties on 20 February 2003 by the Commission of the European
         of the European Communities against Ireland                          Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of the Euro-
                                                                              pean Commission’s Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
                                                                              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                             (Case C-75/03)                                   Gómez de la Cruz, also of the European Commission’s Legal
                                                                              Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                            (2003/C 101/36)
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                     1.    declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
Justice of the European Communities on 19 February 2003 by                          regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                             comply with Directive 98/71/EC ( 1) of the European
by Nicola Yerrell, acting as agent, with an address for service                     Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 1998 on
in Luxembourg.                                                                      the legal protection of designs and/or by failing to inform
                                                                                the Commission of those provisions, the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                         directive;
(1) find that Ireland has failed in its obligations under the EC              2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
       Treaty by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with
       Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29th June 1998 amending
       Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws                  Pleas in law and main arguments
       of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
       employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
       businesses or parts of businesses (1), or by failing to                The period for transposition expired on 28 October 2001.
       ensure that employers’ and employees’ representatives
       have introduced the necessary provisions by agreement,
       and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof; and                (1 ) OJ L 289 of 28.10.1998, p. 28.
(2) condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure.


title: Case C-423/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Dried vegetables (garlic bulbs) from which not all moisture has been removed)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/19

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X BV
   (Case C-423/09) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Dried vegetables (garlic bulbs) from which not all moisture has been removed)
   2010/C 346/31
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: X BV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1) — Tariff classification of dried vegetables (garlic bulbs), from which not all of the moisture has been removed and which are imported in a chilled state

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that garlic which has undergone an intensive drying process in accordance with a specific treatment as a result of which all, or almost all, of the moisture in the product is removed comes under tariff subheading 0712 90 90 of the Combined Nomenclature, but that partially dried garlic which retains the properties and characteristics of fresh garlic comes under tariff subheading 0703 20 00 of the Combined Nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


C 312/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                10.10.98
context of the selection of employees for dismissal on                     Removal from the register of Case C-359/96 (1)
social criteria if substantially more women than men are                                     (98/C 312/15)
employed part-time in a sector?
(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                       By order of 28 May 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-359/96 (reference for
                                                                     a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                     Pavia): Criminal proceedings against Luigi Bazzan,
                                                                     Agostino Traverso and Adriano Calvini.
Action brought on 1 September 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic              (1) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
                       (Case C-326/98)
                         (98/C 312/14)
An action against the French Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                        Removal from the register of Case C-335/96 (1)
1 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                                              (98/C 312/16)
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Court-Castera, a
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                     By order of 9 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            removal from the register of Case C-335/96: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
Ð declare that, by requiring the words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ
     sociale' (social security levy') to appear on the
     labelling of alcoholic beverages from other Member
     States, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty,
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-318/97 (1)
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                                                (98/C 312/17)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Under French law, a contribution to the national sickness            Justice of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) has
insurance fund is levied on alcoholic beverages having an            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-318/97:
alcohol content in excess of 25 % by volume. The                     Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
contribution is paid by wholesalers and by producers                 Spain.
selling such beverages direct to retailers or consumers, and
the words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ sociale' must appear in the         (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
form of a circle on the labelling of those beverages.
As regards products coming from other Member States,
the labelling obligation referred to above, failure to
comply with which may lead to a criminal prosecution,
constitutes a restriction on the free movement of goods                    Removal from the register of Case C-398/97 (1)
and thus falls, as a measure having equivalent effect,
within the scope of Article 30 of the Treaty.                                                (98/C 312/18)
A labelling obligation intended to inform consumers by
                                                                     By order of 17 June 1998 the President of the Court of
pointing out the risks of alcohol abuse and the total cost
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
borne by the social security system may be regarded as
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-398/97: Commission
legitimate, provided however that the measure in question
                                                                     of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
is appropriate to the achievement of that objective. In the
Commission's view, that criterion is not fulfilled by the
words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ sociale'.                               (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.


title: Action brought on 24 March 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-79/98)

text:
30.5.98               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 166/7
Ð order such other or further relief as may be lawful or              Action brought on 24 March 1998 by the Commission of
     equitable; and                                                       the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-79/98)
Ð order the Council to pay the Appellant's costs.
                                                                                (98/C 166/10)
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                      An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                      on 24 March 1998 by the Commission of the European
The Appellant submits that the judgment of the Court of               Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal
First Instance contains fundamental errors of law and                 Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
must be set aside.                                                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
First, the Court of First Instance erred in finding that              The applicant claims that the Court should:
patent-protection in the exporter's domestic market alone
is irrelevant to the price comparability requirement
contained in Article 2(3) of Council Regulation (EEC)                 Ð Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
No 2423/88 (4), hereinafter the Basic Regulation'. The                   or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
ordinary meaning of the word comparable' within                          Commission Directive 94/69/EC of 19 December 1994
Article 2(3), the overall scheme of the Basic Regulation                  adapting to technical progress for the twenty-first time
and of the process for establishing and comparing normal                  Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation
value and export price, GATT law, U.S. law, and the aims                  of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
and objectives of anti-dumping law and of intellectual                    relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
property law all lead to the conclusion that patent-                      of dangerous substances (1), the Kingdom of Belgium
protection is a matter affecting price comparability within               has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
the meaning of Article 2(3) and that normal value may                     and
not be established on the basis of actual domestic prices
when those prices (but not export prices) are the result of           Ð Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
patent-protected sales.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments:
Second, the Court of First Instance erred in finding that a
failure by the Commission to grant any disclosure of its              The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous with
determinations prior to the imposition of provisional                 those submitted in Case C-66/98 (2); the time-limit
duties is a defect which can be remedied after the                    provided for in the directive expired on 1 September 1996.
imposition of provisional duties and does not, therefore,
affect the validity of the definitive collection of the               (1) OJ L 381 of 31.12.1994, p. 1.
provisional duties. The fundamental principles of                     (2) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998, p. 12.
Community law Ð in particular the right to be heard Ð
and the practice of the Commission in other cases required
the Commission to disclose essential facts and
considerations to the Appellant prior to the adoption of
the Provisional Duty Regulation. The Commission's
failure to make timely disclosure of such matters to the
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sù- og Handels-
Appellant amounted to a breach of this fundamental
                                                                      ret by order of 18 March 1998 in the case of 3Com
principle as well as to discrimination. This fundamental
                                                                      Corporation v Bluecom Danmark A/S and KISS Nordic
breach rendered the Provisional Duty Regulation invalid,
                                                                                A/S
and this defect in the Provisional Duty could not be and
was not remedied in the Definitive Duty Regulation.                                          (Case C-80/98)
                                                                                (98/C 166/11)
(1) OJ C 291 of 8.11.1991, p. 8.
(2) OJ C 291 of 8.11.1991, p. 9.
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1391/91 of 27 May 1991                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of             European Communities by order of 18 March 1998 from
    aspartame originating in Japan and the United States of           the Sù- og Handelsret (Maritime and Commercial Court),
    America (OJ L 134 of 29.5.1991, p. 1).                            which was received at the Court Registry on 25 March
(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88 of 11 July 1988 on            1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of 3Com
    protection against dumped or subsidized imports from
                                                                      Corporation v Bluecom Danmark A/S and KISS Nordic
    countries not members of the European Economic Community
    (OJ L 209 of 2.8.1988, p. 1).                                     A/S on the following question:
                                                                      Does it follow from Article 7(1) of First Council Directive
                                                                      89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 March2004 in Joined Cases C-231/00. C-303/00 and C-451/00 referred for apreliminary ruling by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy)Cooperativa Lattepiù arl and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercatoagricolo (AIMA), Azienda Agricola Marcello Balestreri e Maura Lena and RegioneLombardia, Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA)and between Azienda Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello and Azienda di Stato pergli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricolee Forestali (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Milk and milkproducts — Additional levy on milk — Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93— Reference quantities — Ex post correction — Notification of producers)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 25 March 2004
   in Joined Cases C-231/00. C-303/00 and C-451/00 referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy) Cooperativa Lattepiù arl and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Azienda Agricola Marcello Balestreri e Maura Lena and Regione Lombardia, Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA) and between Azienda Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 - Reference quantities - Ex post correction - Notification of producers)
   (2004/C 106/01)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Joined Cases C-231/00, C-303/00 and C-451/00, reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Cooperativa Lattepiù arl and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA) (C-231/00), between Azienda Agricola Marcello Balestreri e Maura Lena and Regione Lombardia, Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA) (C-303/00), and between Azienda Agricola Giuseppe Cantarello and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (C-451/00), – on the interpretation and validity of Articles 1, 4, 6 and 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1), and of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12) – the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed of: V. Skouris (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges, P. Léger, Advocate General, L. Hewlett and H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrators for the Registrar, have given a judgment on 25 March 2004, in which
   On a proper construction of Articles 1, 4, 6 and 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector and of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State, after checks have been carried out, to correct the individual reference quantities allocated to each producer and, after the unused reference quantities have been reallocated, to recalculate in consequence the additional levies payable, after the final date for payment of those levies for the milk marketing year concerned

      (1)  OJC 247, 26.8.2000.

      OJC 302, 21.10.2000.

      OJC 61, 24.2.2001.