title: Case C-38/11: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Amorim Energia BV v Ministério das Finanças e da Administração Pública (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU — Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — Directive 90/435/EEC — Article 3(2) — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Taxation of dividends — Withholding tax — Exemption — Minimum holding in the company distributing dividends — Conditions — Minimum period of uninterrupted share ownership — Conditions — Resident and non-resident recipient companies — Different treatment)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/18

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Amorim Energia BV v Ministério das Finanças e da Administração Pública
   (Case C-38/11) (1)

   (The first subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU - Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU - Directive 90/435/EEC - Article 3(2) - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Taxation of dividends - Withholding tax - Exemption - Minimum holding in the company distributing dividends - Conditions - Minimum period of uninterrupted share ownership - Conditions - Resident and non-resident recipient companies - Different treatment)
   2012/C 366/29
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Amorim Energia BV

      Defendant: Ministério das Finanças e da Administração Pública

      Intervener: Ministério Público

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU — National legislation subjecting dividends distributed to non-resident companies to tax rules less favourable than those applied to dividends distributed to resident companies — Non-resident companies required to have held shares for a longer minimum period of share holding and to possess a larger minimum holding

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 63 TFEU and 65 TFEU preclude the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not permit a company resident in another Member State with a holding of more than 10 % but less than 20 % in a company resident in Portugal to obtain exemption from the tax withheld at source on dividends distributed by the company resident in Portugal and therefore subjects those dividends to economic double taxation, whereas, if the dividends are distributed to shareholder companies resident in Portugal with the same kind of holdings, such economic double taxation is avoided. Where a Member State relies on a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded with another Member State, it is for the national court to establish whether account should be taken, in the main proceedings, of that convention and, if so, to determine whether it enables the effects of the restriction on the free movment of capital to be neutralised.

               2.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU preclude the legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits a company resident in another Member State with a holding greater than 20 % in a company resident in Portugal to secure repayment of the tax deducted at source on dividends distributed by the company resident in Portugal only if it has had such a holding for an interrupted period of two years, and thus delays the elimination of economic double taxation by comparison with shareholder companies resident in Portugal with the same kind of shareholdings. Where a Member State relies on a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded with another Member State, it is for the national court to establish whether account should be taken, in the main proceedings, of that convention and, if so, to determine whether it enables the effects of the restriction on the free movment of capital to be neutralised.

      (1)  OJ C 130, 30.4.2011.


title: Case C-572/08: Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 6 May 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/30

         Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 6 May 2010 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-572/08) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 234/50
   Language of the case: Italian
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 June 2003 in Case C-121/01 P: Eoghan O'Hannrachain v European Parliament (Appeals — Officials — Grade A 1 post — Article 29(2) of the Staff Regulations — Notice of vacancy — Documents drawn up after the contested decision)

text:
2.8.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 184/5
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           of the directive and was awarded following training in accor-
                                                                                dance with the provisions of Title III thereof. In the event of
                                                                                new factors coming to light which give rise to serious doubts as
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                         to the authenticity of the diploma submitted to them or as to
                                                                                whether it complies with the applicable rules, it is permissible
                                                                                for them to re-open the matter of verification with the autho-
                            of 19 June 2003                                         rities of the Member State awarding the relevant diploma.
in Case C-110/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     (1) OJ C 118, 21.4.2001.
the Conseil d'État): Malika Tennah-Durez v Conseil
                 national de l'ordre des médecins (1)
(Directive 93/16/EEC — Free movement of doctors and
mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications — Article 23(2) — Condi-
tions of training required — Length of training — Inclusion
of periods of training received in a third country — Article 9                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(5) — Certificate stating that the diploma was awarded
following training complying with the requisite conditions                                              (Second Chamber)
— Re-examination of the conditions of training by the host
 Member State for the purposes of recognising the diploma)
                                                                                of 5 June 2003
                            (2003/C 184/08)
                                                                              in Case C-121/01 P: Eoghan O'Hannrachain v European
                                                                                Parliament (1)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              (Appeals — Officials — Grade A 1 post — Article 29(2) of
                                                                              the Staff Regulations — Notice of vacancy — Documents
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in                    drawn up after the contested decision)
                       the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2003/C 184/09)
In Case C-110/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                         (Language of the case: French)
EC by the Conseil d'État (France) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before it between Malika Tennah-
Durez and Conseil national de l'ordre des médecins, on the                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
interpretation of Article 9(5) and Article 23(2) of Council                                         the European Court Reports)
Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free
movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their
diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifica-
tions (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                       In Case C-121/01 P, Eoghan O'Hannrachain, official of the
composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Fourth                       European Parliament, residing in Cents (Luxembourg), repre-
Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.                       sented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, avocats: Appeal against
O. Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas,                    the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal                Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 16 January 2001 in Case
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                     T-97/99 Chamier and O'Hannrachain v Parliament [2001]
19 June 2003, in which it has ruled:                                          ECR-SC I-A-1 and II-1, seeking to have that judgment set aside
                                                                              in part, the other party to the proceedings being: European
                                                                              Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo, H. von Hertzen and D. Moore),
1.    The medical training required by Article 23(2) of Council               the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,
      Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free              President of the Sixth Chamber, acting for the President of
      movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their                 the Second Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
      diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications      Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
      may comprise training received even mainly in a third country,          Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 June 2003, in
      provided that the competent authority of the Member State               which it:
      awarding the diploma is in a position to validate the training
      and to conclude on that basis that it duly serves to meet the
      requirements for the training of doctors laid down by the               1.    Dismisses the appeal;
      directive.
                                                                              2.    Orders Mr O'Hannrachain to pay the costs.
2.    The authorities of the host Member State are bound by a
      certificate, issued in accordance with Article 9(5) of Directive        (1) OJ C 150, 19.5.2001.
      93/16, which states that the relevant diploma is treated as one
      of the qualifications or designations set out in Article 3, 5 or 7


C 247/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                26.8.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-405/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-417/98 P (1)
                         (2000/C 247/43)                                                     (2000/C 247/47)
By order of 4 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 10 May 2000 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-405/99: Commission of the European            the register of Case C-417/98 P: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                                    Communities v Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co.
                                                                     KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH Kai Interporc Im- und Export GmbH.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-426/99 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-156/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/44)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/48)
By order of 6 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             By order of 10 May 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-426/99 (reference for a preliminary           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
ruling from the Oberlandesgericht, Düsseldorf): Connaught            the register of Case C-156/99: Commission of the European
Laboratories Inc. v SmithKline Beecham Pharma GmbH and               Communities v French Republic.
SmithKline Beecham Biologicals Manufacturing SA.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-355/99 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-168/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/45)                                                     (2000/C 247/49)
By order of 7 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 11 May 2000 the President of the First Chamber
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
the register of Case C-355/99: Commission of the European            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-168/99:
Communities v Ireland.                                               Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
                                                                     Spain.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-412/99 (1)
                         (2000/C 247/46)                                    Removal from the register of Case C-229/99 (1)
By order of 18 April 2000 the President of the Court of Justice                              (2000/C 247/50)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-412/99: Commission of the European            By order of 15 May 2000 the President of the First Chamber
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                   of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                     ordered the removal from the register of Case C-229/99:
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.                                            Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.


title: Case C-276/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Schleswig by order of 5 July 2001 in proceedings involving the imposition of a fine on Joachim Christian Kurt Steffensen

text:
C 275/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      29.9.2001
      Lawyers who are nationals of other EC Member States              No 729/70 (2) and Article 23 of Regulation No 4523/88 (3),
      and who work in Italy are also required under Article 13         under which the Member State can and must take the measures
      of the Law of 9 February 1982 to comply with the tariff          necessary to prevent and take action against irregularities and
      for legal fees and thus also with the rule prohibiting           recover amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence,
      differentiation of amounts below a specified minimum             applicable in this context as well?
      level.
(2) Are Articles 633(1)(2) and 636(1) of the Italian Code of           (1) OJ 1997 L 53 p. 30.
      Civil Procedure, under which a lawyer is authorised to           (2) OJ 1970 L 94 p. 13.
      have his fees determined by the Council of the order to          (3) OJ 1988 L 374 p. 1.
      which he belongs through the adoption of an opinion
      binding on his client and on the court (in enforcement
      proceedings), allowing him to obtain entitlement based
      on that unilateral determination of the professional
      fee pursuant to the abovementioned minimum tariffs,
      contrary to free competition on the ground that they
      prevent the free fixing of fees for a lawyer’s services, as
      provided for under Article 81(1)(a) EC, by reserving such
      determination to a body consisting exclusively of lawyers?
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
                                                                       Schleswig by order of 5 July 2001 in proceedings involv-
                                                                       ing the imposition of a fine on Joachim Christian Kurt
                                                                                Steffensen
                                                                                (Case C-276/01)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                                           (2001/C 275/12)
Stato, Sixth Section, by order of that court of 8 May 2001,
in the case of Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
against CO.P.P.I., Società Concentrati Bevibili Sicilia (CBS)          European Communities by order of 5 July 2001 by the
           and Impianti Brevetti Servizi (IBIESSE)                     Amtsgericht Schleswig (Local Court, Schleswig), which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 13 July 2001, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling, in proceedings involving the imposition of
                        (Case C-271/01)                                a fine on Joachim Christian Kurt Steffensen, on the following
                                                                       questions:
                        (2001/C 275/11)
                                                                       1.    Is Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June
                                                                             1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (1) to be
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       construed as conferring on the manufacturer of a product
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato                      a directly applicable right to apply for a second opinion
(Council of State), Sixth Section, of 8 May 2001, received at                in the case where public authorities have taken from a
the Court Registry on 9 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in               retail outlet a sample of the manufacturer’s product for
the case of Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali                   purposes of analysis and that sample has failed to satisfy
(Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) against CO.P.P.I., Società            certain criteria imposed by the legislation on foodstuffs?
Concentrati Bevibili Sicilia (CBS) and Impianti Brevetti Servizi
(IBIESSE) on the following question:                                   2.    If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
                                                                             is Article 7(1) of that directive to be construed as giving
Does Article 19 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 (1) of                 rise to a Community-law prohibition on the use of
15 February 1977 — which provides that the Commission,                       findings based on samples removed by public authorities
after consulting the Fund Committee on the financial aspects,                where it has not been made possible for the manufacturer
may decide, in accordance with the procedure laid down in                    of the product which is the subject of criticism in those
Article 22, to suspend, reduce or discontinue aid from the                   findings to apply for a second opinion?
Fund, and to recover sums paid, if, inter alia, prior to expiry of
the period laid down therein, the beneficiary sells equipment
or buildings having received aid from the Fund without prior
authorization from the Commission — constitute a standard              (1) OJ 1989 L 186, p. 23.
procedure which excludes the Member State’s competence to
adopt such measures to discontinue aid and recover sums
paid, or are the principles laid down in Article 8 of Regulation


C 246/46              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28.8.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-32/96 (1)                             Removal from the register of Case T-6/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/93)                                                           (1999/C 246/96)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: English)
By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second                    By order of 5 May 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 ordered the removal from the register of Case T-6/97: Com-
the register of Case T-32/96: Société Générale v Commission              africa SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v Com-
of the European Communities.                                             mission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.                                                (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-153/96 and
                           T-8/97 (1)                                           Removal from the register of Case T-62/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/94)                                                           (1999/C 246/97)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: French)
By order of 25 February 1999 the President of the Fifth                  By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance             Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Joined Cases T-153/96 and T-8/97: Union                  the register of Case T-62/97: Société Générale v Commission
Carbide Corporation v Commission of the European Com-                    of the European Communities.
munities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996 and OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-124/97 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case T-1/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/95)                                                           (1999/C 246/98)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
By order of 31 May 1999 the President of the Second Chamber              By order of 15 April 1999 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-1/97:                has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-124/97:
Jean-Luc Delhaye v Commission of the European Communi-                   Miguel Dı́az-Llanos La Roche v Commission of the European
ties.                                                                    Communities.
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                                (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.


title: Case T-122/14: Action brought on 19 February 2014  — Italy v Commission

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/42

         Action brought on 19 February 2014 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-122/14)
   2014/C 102/63
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato, and G. Palmieri, Agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The Italian Republic claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against Commission decision No C(2013) 8681 final of 9 December 2013, by which, in compliance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 November 2011 in Case C-496/09, the Commission asked the Italian Republic to make a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 6 252 000.
   The contested decision refers to the second six-month period of delay, namely the period from 17 May to 17 November 2012.
   The Italian Government puts forward the following pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea: infringement of Article 260(1) TFEU and the second subparagraph of Article 260(3) TFEU, and failure to comply with the above judgment with respect to the debt owed by undertakings which have ‘have entered into an arrangement with creditors’ or are in ‘supervised administration’.
               The Italian Republic argues in that regard that the decision does not deduct from the aid remaining due at the end of the six-month reference period the debt, owed by the debtor undertakings which are bankrupt or subject to bankruptcy proceedings, which has come about as a result of related proceedings, even though, according to that Government, the Italian Republic had sought recovery of that debt with due diligence and that debt should therefore be excluded from the amount of aid owed under that judgment.

               2.

               Second plea: infringement of Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1), and also the misapplication of Article 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 140, p. 1).
               The Italian Republic argues in that regard that the decision requires the Italian authorities to add, to the sums owed by the undertakings in repayment of the State aid, interest at a compound rate, as provided for in Article 11 of Regulation No 794/2004. The Italian Government contests that requirement, arguing that, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (and, in particular, the judgment in Case C-295/07 Commission v Département du Loiret and Scott SA), interest calculated in such a manner cannot be applied in relation to recovery decisions notified prior to the entry into force of Regulation No 794/2004, still less in relation to decisions notified prior to the publication of the Commission Communication on the interest rates to be applied when aid granted unlawfully is recovered (OJ 2003 C 110, p. 21).


title: Case T-495/04: Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Belfass against the Council of the European Union

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/34

         Action brought on 23 December 2004 by Belfass against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-495/04)
   (2005/C 57/59)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 December 2004 by Belfass, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union rejecting the two tenders entered by the applicant under call for tenders UCA 033/04 for the award of a contract for cleaning and maintenance services of two office buildings in Brussels;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 1 481 317.65 together with interest, calculated at the rate of 7 % per annum, from the date on which the present action was brought, expressly subject to future increase, reduction or determination;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in the present case, a company specialising in the cleaning of offices which has been responsible since 1 January 1998 for the cleaning of certain offices of the General Secretariat of the Council, challenges the rejection by the defendant of two tenders submitted by the applicant in respect of a tender relating to the conclusion of a contract for cleaning and general services to be performed in the ‘Woluwe Heights’ (lot 1) and ‘Frère Orban’ (lot 2) buildings.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

               —

               the existence in the present case of a manifest error of assessment in that, in order to reject the tender relating to lot 1, the defendant claims that the average hourly rate under that tender is less than the minimum wage laid down by the Union générale belge du nettoyage (Belgian General Cleaning Union) for category 1A, on 1 July 2004, whereas a precise analysis of the figures in the applicant's tender shows that the average hourly rate thereunder is above the minimum figure set by the Union générale belge du nettoyage;

               —

               infringement of the principles of sound administration and non-discrimination and the existence in the present case of a manifest error of assessment in that the tender relating to lot 2 was rejected, without further consideration, on the sole ground that the total number of hours of work under that tender was less by more than 12.5 % than the average number of hours under the other tenders received for the contract in question, whereas by using that criterion the contested decision favours the most expensive tenders providing for invoicing of an elevated number of hours, without any objective purpose.


title: Case C-222/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Unión de Televisiones Comerciales Asociadas (UTECA) v Administración General del Estado (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 12 EC — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality — Articles 39 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC — Fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty — Article 87 EC — State aid — Directive 89/552/EEC — Pursuit of television broadcasting activities — Obligation for television operators to earmark a percentage of their operating revenue for the pre-funding of European cinematographic films and films made for television, 60% of that funding being reserved to the production of works of which the original language is one of the official languages of the Kingdom of Spain and of which the majority is produced by the Spanish film industry)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 March 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain)) — Unión de Televisiones Comerciales Asociadas (UTECA) v Administración General del Estado
   (Case C-222/07) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 12 EC - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality - Articles 39 EC, 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC - Fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty - Article 87 EC - State aid - Directive 89/552/EEC - Pursuit of television broadcasting activities - Obligation for television operators to earmark a percentage of their operating revenue for the pre-funding of European cinematographic films and films made for television, 60% of that funding being reserved to the production of works of which the original language is one of the official languages of the Kingdom of Spain and of which the majority is produced by the Spanish film industry)
   2009/C 102/05
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Unión de Televisiones Comerciales Asociadas (UTECA)

      Defendant: Administración General del Estado

      Intervening parties: Federación de Asociaciones de Productores Audiovisuales, Radiotelevisión Española (RTVE), Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (Egeda)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 87(3) EC and Article 3(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23) — Obligation for television operators to earmark a percentage of their operating revenue for the pre-funding of European cinematographic films and films made for television, 60 % of that funding being reserved to the production of original Spanish-language works the majority of which are produced by the Spanish film industry

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997, and, more particularly, Article 3 thereof and Article 12 EC must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a measure adopted by a Member State such as the measure at issue in the main proceedings which requires television operators to earmark 5% of their operating revenue for the pre-funding of European cinematographic films and films made for television and, more specifically, to reserve 60% of that 5% for the production of works of which the original language is one of the official languages of that Member State.

               2.

               Article 87 EC must be interpreted as meaning that a measure adopted by a Member State, such as the measure at issue in the main proceedings, requiring television operators to earmark 5% of their operating revenue for the pre-funding of European cinematographic films and films made for television and, more specifically, to reserve 60% of that 5% for the production of works of which the original language is one of the official languages of that Member State does not constitute State aid in favour of the cinematographic industry of that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.


title: Case T-247/06 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2007 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Career development report — 2003 promotions procedure — Appeal unfounded)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 July 2007 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission
   (Case T-247/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Career development report - 2003 promotions procedure - Appeal unfounded)
   (2007/C 199/71)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and M. Velardo, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2006 in Case F-19/05 Sanchez Ferriz v Commission (not yet published in European Court Reports), seeking the annulment of that judgment.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Carlos Sanchez Ferriz to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 28.10.2006.


title: Case C-241/13: Order of the President of the Court of 18 August 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Estonia supported by: Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Belgium, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Poland, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 August 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia supported by: Federal Republic of Germany, Kingdom of Belgium, Kingdom of the Netherlands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Republic of Poland, Republic of Finland, Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-241/13) (1)

   2014/C 409/44
   Language of the case: Estonian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court of 3 June 2013 in Case E-14/12 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Principality of Liechtenstein (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfill its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Articles 31 and 36 EEA — Obligation on temporary work agencies to deposit a guarantee — Indirect and direct discrimination — Residence requirement — Justification)

text:
               26.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/11

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 3 June 2013
   in Case E-14/12
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Principality of Liechtenstein
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfill its obligations — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Articles 31 and 36 EEA — Obligation on temporary work agencies to deposit a guarantee — Indirect and direct discrimination — Residence requirement — Justification)
   2013/C 277/09
   In Case E-14/12, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Principality of Liechtenstein — APPLICATION for a declaration that by maintaining in force legislation which imposes on persons resident in Liechtenstein who are responsible for a temporary work agency the obligation to supply a guarantee of 50 000 Swiss francs, whereas the guarantee of 100 000 Swiss francs is imposed upon persons performing a similar function who are resident outside of Liechtenstein, and on agencies seeking to deliver temporary employment services cross-border, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 3 June 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force legislation which imposes on persons resident in Liechtenstein who are responsible for a temporary work agency the obligation to supply a guarantee of 50 000 Swiss francs, whereas the guarantee of 100 000 Swiss francs is imposed upon persons performing a similar function who are resident outside of Liechtenstein, and on agencies seeking to deliver temporary employment services cross-border, the Principality of Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31 and Article 36 of the EEA Agreement.

               2.

               Orders Liechtenstein to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-597/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2013 by Total SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-548/08 Total SA v European Commission

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/18

         Appeal brought on 22 November 2013 by Total SA against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-548/08 Total SA v European Commission
   (Case C-597/13 P)
   2014/C 45/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Total SA (represented by: E. Morgan de Rivery, E. Lagathu, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Principally:

               —

               on the basis of Articles 256 TFEU and 56 of Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, set aside in full the judgement of the General Court of 13 September 2013 in Case T-548/08 Total v European Commission;

               —

               grant the form of order which it sought at first instance before the General Court;

               —

               consequently, annul Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes in so far as it concerns Total;

         In the alternative, exercise its power to amend on the basis of Article 261 TFEU in order to reduce the amount of the fine imposed on Total.
   In any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety, including those incurred by Total before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant raises three main grounds and three in the alternative.
   In the first place, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed the principle of audi alteram partem by giving two judgments on the same day which resulted in a modification of the nature of the liability attributed to the appellant and, consequently, in its being rendered more serious.
   In the second place, the appellant alleges errors of law relating to the grounds for the judgment of the General Court. First, the General Court erred in law in the course of its review of the lawfulness of the decision, by failing to annul the decision on the ground that the Commission infringed its obligation to state reasons. Secondly, the General Court failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons in the context of its power to amend on the basis of Article 261 TFEU.
   In the third place, the appellant submits that the General Court made errors of law in the context of its power to amend on the basis of Article 261 TFEU by refusing to reduce the appellant’s fine in the same proportions as the fine imposed on the subsidiary company Total Raffinage Marketing. The General Court, first, incorrectly assessed the extent of its power to amend by modifying the joint and several nature of the liability of the appellant and the subsidiary, even though it is authorised only to modify the amount of the fine. Secondly, the appellant considers that the General Court failed to have regard to the caselaw of the Court of Justice concerning the joint liability of a parent company arising from the infringing conduct of the subsidiary company, and infringed the principles of equality, non-discrimination and proportionality.
   In the fourth place, the appellant requests the Court of Justice, in the alternative, to exercise its own power to amend in order to annul or amend the amount of the fine.
   In the fifth place, it requests the Court of Justice to amend, on a limited basis, the amount of the fine for the purpose of making it compatible with that imposed on the subsidiary Total Raffinage Marketing in Case T-566/08.
   In the last place, it requests the Court of Justice to amend the basic amount of the fine for the purpose of making it compatible with that of the fine imposed on the subsidiary Total Raffinage Marketing in Case T 566/08, either, in the event of an appeal, in the judgment of the Court of Justice given on appeal where the latter considers that the case has reached a stage permitting a final decision, or in the judgment given by the General Court on a referral from the Court of Justice.


title: Case C-139/14: Order of the Court of 22 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg) — Mineralquelle Zurzach AG v Hauptzollamt Singen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common customs tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Classification of goods — Tariff heading 2202 10 00 — Waters, including mineral waters and aerated waters, containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured — Tariff heading 2202 9010 11 — Fruit juice or vegetable juice diluted with water or aerated)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/12

      Order of the Court of 22 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg) — Mineralquelle Zurzach AG v Hauptzollamt Singen
      (Case C-139/14) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common customs tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Classification of goods - Tariff heading 2202 10 00 - Waters, including mineral waters and aerated waters, containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or flavoured - Tariff heading 2202 9010 11 - Fruit juice or vegetable juice diluted with water or aerated)
      (2015/C 016/18)
      Language of the case: German

         Referring court

      Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Mineralquelle Zurzach AG

         Defendant: Hauptzollamt Singen

         Re:

      The Combined Nomenclature contained 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 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 must be interpreted as meaning that a drink, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of inter alia water, sugar, concentrated orange, lemon, grape, pineapple, mandarin, nectarine and passion fruit juices, apricot and guava pulp, acidifier, a vitamin mix, natural and artificial flavouring, and which have a fruit juice content of 12 % comes under tariff subheading 2202 10 00 of that nomenclature.

         (1)  OJ C 194, 24.6.2014.


title: Case C-542/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 26 October 2016 — Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag and Others v Dödsboet efter Ingvar Mattsson, Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 26 October 2016 — Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag and Others v Dödsboet efter Ingvar Mattsson, Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag
   (Case C-542/16)
   (2017/C 014/31)
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta domstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag, Jan-Herik Strobel, Mona Strobel, Margareta Nilsson, Per Nilsson, Kent Danås, Dödsboet efter Tommy Jönsson, Stefan Pramryd, Stefan Ingemansson, Lars Persson, Magnus Persson, Anne-Charlotte Wickström, Peter Nilsson, Ingela Landau, Thomas Landau, Britt-Inger Ruth Romare, Gertrud Andersson, Eva Andersson, Rolf Andersson, Lisa Bergström, Bo Sörensson, Christina Sörensson, Kaj Wirenkook, Lena Bergquist Johansson, Agneta Danås, Hans Eriksson, Christina Forsberg, Christina Danielsson, Per-Olof Danielsson, Ann-Christin Jönsson, Åke Jönsson, Stefan Lindgren, Daniel Röme, Ulla Nilsson, Dödsboet efter Leif Göran Erik Nilsson

      Defendants: Dödsboet efter Ingvar Mattsson, Länsförsäkringar Sak Försäkringsaktiebolag

      Questions referred

               1

                           (a)

                           Does Directive 2002/92 (1) cover activity where an insurance intermediary had no intention of concluding an actual insurance contract? Is it relevant whether such an intention was absent before the activity was commenced or came into being only subsequently?

                           (b)

                           In the situation envisaged in question 1(a), is it relevant if the intermediary has also carried out proper insurance mediation activity alongside the fictive activity?

                           (c)

                           Also in the situation envisaged in question 1(a), is it relevant that the activity appeared, prima facie, to the client to be work preparatory to the conclusion of an insurance contract? Is the client’s understanding, be it well founded or unfounded, of whether insurance mediation was involved of any relevance?

               2

                           (a)

                           Does Directive 2002/92 govern advice, economic or other, given in connection with insurance mediation but which as such does not concern the actual signing or continuation of an insurance contract? In that regard, what does apply, in particular, as regards advice concerning the placing of capital in the context of capital assurance?

                           (b)

                           Is advice such as that referred to in question 2(a), where, by definition, it constitutes investment advice under Directive 2004/39, (2) also or instead covered by the provisions of that directive? If such advice is also covered by Directive 2004/39, does one set of rules take precedence over the other?

      (1)  Directive 2002/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 December 2002 on insurance mediation (OJ 2003 L 9, p. 3).

      (2)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-314/01: Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Coöperatieve Verkoop- en Productievereniging van Aardappelmeel en Derivaten "AVEBE" B.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 68/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16.3.2002
Action brought on 13 December 2001 by Jungbunzlauer                     With regard to the fine imposed, the applicant asserts, inter
AG against the Commission of the European Com-                          alia, that the Commission, when fixing the amount of the fine,
                             munities                                   failed to take account of the size of the undertakings concerned,
                                                                        and likewise failed to pay sufficient regard to the economic
                                                                        significance of the infringement. The Commission thereby
                         (Case T-312/01)                                violated the principle of proportionality, its own guidelines
                                                                        and its own practice. Furthermore, it committed an error of
                                                                        assessment by refusing to take into account the fact that fines
                          (2002/C 68/22)                                had already been imposed in the USA and Canada in respect
                                                                        of the same facts.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        Finally, the applicant claims that its right to be heard in
                                                                        accordance with the law has been violated, since the Com-
                                                                        mission did not give it access to the entire investigation file. In
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               addition, the protracted length of the procedure had a twofold
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              effect on the content of the decision, inasmuch as the latest
European Communities on 13 December 2001 by Jung-                       turnover figures were taken as the applicable basis and because
bunzlauer AG, of Basle, represented by Rainer Bechtold,                 the decision was not issued until after there had been a
Matthias Karl and Ulrich Soltész, lawyers.                              substantial tightening of the Commission’s practice in the
                                                                        imposition of fines, which significantly prejudiced the appli-
                                                                        cant’s position.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 2 October 2001
      (Case COM/E-1/36.756 — Sodium gluconate);
—     alternatively, reduce the fine imposed in Article 3 of the
      decision;                                                         Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Coöperatieve
                                                                        Verkoop- en Productievereniging van Aardappelmeel en
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.                Derivaten ‘AVEBE’ B.A. against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-314/01)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 68/23)
By the contested decision, the Commission found that the                                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
applicant and five other undertakings had participated in a
continuous and/or concerted practice in the sodium gluconate
sector and had thereby infringed Article 81(1) EC. Fines were
imposed on those undertakings.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Coöperatie-
The applicant is contesting that decision and asserts that it was       ve Verkoop- en Productievereniging van Aardappelmeel en
directed to the wrong addressee, inasmuch as it was only                Derivaten ‘AVEBE’ B.A., established at Veendam (Netherlands),
Jungbunzlauer Ladenburg GmbH, an associate company of the               represented by Cornelis Titus Dekker, with an address for
applicant, which had participated in the acts contrary to cartel        service in Luxembourg.
law described in the decision.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Commission wrongly assumed
that the infringement did not cease until 1995. Moreover, the
                                                                        —      annul the Commission’s decision C(2001) 2931 of
Commission has not conclusively shown that the applicant, or
                                                                               2 October 2001;
its associated company, had played the role of ‘ringleader’ —
on which ground the basic amount of the fine was wrongly
increased by 50 %.                                                      —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.3.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 68/13
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            on 17 December 2001 by Omar Mohamed Othman, represent-
                                                                           ed by Ms Fiona Lindsley of Birnberg Peirce & Partners, London
                                                                           (United Kingdom)
The applicant has since 1993 been the sole owner of Glucona
B.V., a company producing sodium gluconate. Glucona had
previously been a joint venture between the applicant and its              The applicant claims that the Court should:
then partner. Glucona was involved in a cartel concerning the
sale of sodium gluconate. The contested decision orders the                —     Annul Council Regulation 467/2001 and Commission
applicant to pay a fine in that regard.                                          Regulation 2062/2001.
In support of its claim, the applicant pleads, primarily,
failure to comply with essential procedural requirements. In
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
particular, it asserts that its rights of defence have been violated
and that an insufficient statement of reasons was given. Thus,
the applicant was not given an opportunity to comment on                   The applicant in the present case, a citizen of Jordan and
the statements made about the applicant by another party                   lawfully residing in the United Kingdom, challenges Council
involved in the investigation.
                                                                           Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 and Regulation (EC)
                                                                           No 2062/2001 of 19 October 2001, amending, for the third
                                                                           time, Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting
The applicant further pleads infringement of Article 81(1) EC
                                                                           the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan,
and Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 (1). According to the
                                                                           strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds
applicant, the conduct of Glucona during the period from
                                                                           and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of
1987 and 1993 cannot be attributed to it. During that period
                                                                           Afghanistan and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 (1).
the applicant’s partner in Glucona was responsible for sales
                                                                           The applicant is named in Regulation (EC) 2062/2001.
policy and the applicant itself had no information whatever in
that regard. It was not until 1993, when the applicant obtained
total control over Glucona, that it was made aware of the
                                                                           According to the applicant, the Council and the Commission
cartel and was thus placed in a position of responsibility
                                                                           have misused their powers conferred by Article 60 and 301
therefor.
                                                                           EC Treaty in adopting the Regulations in question. Further-
                                                                           more, the applicant contends that the Regulations violate his
                                                                           human rights, specifically Articles 3 and 8 of the European
Lastly, the applicant pleads violation of the principle of
                                                                           Convention on Human Rights. Finally, the applicant claims
proportionality, inasmuch as the Commission failed to take
                                                                           that the measures are disproportionate and in violation of the
account of the purely passive role played by the applicant in
                                                                           principle of subsidiarity.
the cartel until 1993.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 277, of 20.10.2001, p. 25.
(1) Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85
    and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962,
    p. 87).
                                                                           Action brought on 20 December 2001 by Roquette
                                                                           Frères S.A. against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Omar Mohamed                                                   Communities
Othman against the Council of the European Union and
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-322/01)
                          (Case T-318/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 68/25)
                           (2002/C 68/24)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           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 and the                European Communities on 20 December 2001 by Roquette
Commission of the European Communities was brought                         Frères S.A., established at Lestrem (France), represented by
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities             Antoine Choffel and Olivier Prost, lawyers.


title: Case T-411/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — Annemans v Commission (Application for annulment — Competition — Handling of complaints — Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 — Commission letter sent to the complainant — Plea of inadmissibility — Preparatory measure — Measure not capable of being appealed — Inadmissibility)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/36

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — Annemans v Commission
   (Case T-411/05) (1)

   (Application for annulment - Competition - Handling of complaints - Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 - Commission letter sent to the complainant - Plea of inadmissibility - Preparatory measure - Measure not capable of being appealed - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 199/68)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Gerolf Annemans (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: initially, C. Symons, and subsequently, B. Siffert, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision supposedly contained in the Commission's letter of 5 September 2005 in Case COMP/39.225 relating to the complaint lodged by Gerolf Annemans with the Commission under Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders Gerolf Annemans to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Case C-301/08: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg)) — Irène Bogiatzi, married name Ventouras v Deutscher Luftpool, Société Luxair, société luxembourgeoise de navigation aérienne SA, European Communities, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Foyer Assurances SA (Transport policy — Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 — Warsaw Convention — Air carrier liability in the event of accidents — Time-limit for bringing an action for damages in respect of harm suffered)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Luxembourg)) — Irène Bogiatzi, married name Ventouras v Deutscher Luftpool, Société Luxair, société luxembourgeoise de navigation aérienne SA, European Communities, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Foyer Assurances SA
   (Case C-301/08) (1)

   (Transport policy - Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 - Warsaw Convention - Air carrier liability in the event of accidents - Time-limit for bringing an action for damages in respect of harm suffered)
   2009/C 297/14
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Irène Bogiatzi, married name Ventouras

      Defendants: Deutscher Luftpool, Société Luxair, société luxembourgeoise de navigation aérienne SA, European Communities, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Foyer Assurances SA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Cassation (Luxembourg) — Interpretation of Article 5(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents (OJ 1997 L 285, p. 1), in relation to Article 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, Signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, as amended at The Hague on 28 September 1955 — Time-limit for bringing an action for compensation for damage suffered — Effect of an advance payment by the carrier, even if without the temporal framework provided for by the regulation, on the recognition of that carrier’s liability

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, as amended by the four additional protocols signed at Montreal on 25 September 1975, does not form part of the rules of the Community legal order which the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret under Article 234 EC.

               2.

               Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in the event of accidents must be interpreted as not precluding the application of Article 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929, as amended by the four additional protocols signed at Montreal on 25 September 1975, to a situation in which a passenger seeks to establish the liability of the air carrier on account of harm suffered by him when flying between Member States of the European Community.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 13.9.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 May 2001 in Case C-28/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Gent, Belgium): criminal proceedings against Jean Verdonck, Ronald Everaert and Edith de Baedts (Directive 89/592/EEC — National rules on insider dealing — Power of Member States to adopt more stringent provisions — Definition of national provisions applied generally)

text:
C 200/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           14.7.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 May 2001
                           of 3 May 2001
                                                                           in Case C-28/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-481/98: Commission of the European Communi-                      the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg te Gent, Belgium):
                     ties v French Republic (1)                            criminal proceedings against Jean Verdonck, Ronald
                                                                                Everaert and Edith de Baedts (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth               (Directive 89/592/EEC — National rules on insider dealing
VAT Directive — Articles 12(3)(a) and 28(2)(a) — Reduced                   — Power of Member States to adopt more stringent pro-
                                rate)                                      visions — Definition of national provisions applied gener-
                                                                                ally)
                          (2001/C 200/17)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/18)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                               in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-28/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-481/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Rechtbank van
(Agent: E. Traversa, acting as Agent, assisted by N. Coutrelis) v
                                                                           Eerste Aanleg te Gent, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling in the
French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam),
                                                                           criminal proceedings pending before that court between Jean
supported by Republic of Finland (Agents: H. Rotkirch and
                                                                           Verdonck, Ronald Everaert and Edith De Baedts — on the
T. Pynnä) — application for a declaration that, by introducing
                                                                           interpretation of Article 6 of Council Directive 89/592/EEC of
and maintaining in force legislation relating to value added tax
                                                                           13 November 1989 coordinating regulations on insider deal-
which provides for a rate of 2,1 % to be charged on medicinal
                                                                           ing (OJ 1989 L 334, p. 30) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
products reimbursable under the social security system, where-
                                                                           composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skour-
as other medicinal products are taxed at the reduced rate of
                                                                           is, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
5,5 %, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
under Article 12 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
                                                                           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                           3 May 2000, in which it has ruled:
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                      1.     Article 6 of Directive 89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989
President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet,                           coordinating regulations on insider dealing does not preclude
R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,                     the application of legislative provisions of a Member State
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,                   which, as regards the prohibition of use of inside information,
has given a judgment on 3 May 2001, in which it:                                  are more stringent than those laid down by the directive,
                                                                                provided that the scope of the definition of inside information
                                                                                used for applying that legislation is the same for all natural or
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                       legal persons subject to the legislation.
                                                                           2.     If provisions of national law run counter to Article 6 of
2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                Directive 89/592, by reason of the fact that certain natural or
      the costs;
                                                                                legal persons are specifically exempted from a more stringent
                                                                                prohibition of use of inside information than that laid down by
3.    Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs.                       the directive, the national court must disapply those more
                                                                                stringent provisions with regard to all persons to whom they
                                                                                might otherwise apply.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 April 2005 in Case T- 353/03: Inge-Lise Nielsen v Council of the European Union (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Manifest error of assessment — Consideration of comparative merits — Admissibility)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 13 April 2005
   in Case T- 353/03: Inge-Lise Nielsen v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Officials - Refusal of promotion - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Manifest error of assessment - Consideration of comparative merits - Admissibility)
   (2005/C 155/34)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-353/03: Inge-Lise Nielsen, a former official of the Council of the European Union, residing in Villiers-la-Ville (Belgium), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Lois and É. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and M. Sims) — application for annulment of the decision of the Council not to promote the applicant to grade C 1 in the 2002 round of promotions, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 April 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ No C 7 of 10.1.2004.


title: Case C-1/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF), in liquidation, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition (State aid — Article 88(3) EC — Unlawful aid declared compatible with the common market — Annulment of the Commission decision — National courts — Application for recovery of unlawfully implemented aid — Proceedings stayed pending the adoption of a new Commission decision — Exceptional circumstances liable to limit the obligation to repay)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/13

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — France) — Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF), in liquidation, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition
   (Case C-1/09) (1)

   (State aid - Article 88(3) EC - Unlawful aid declared compatible with the common market - Annulment of the Commission decision - National courts - Application for recovery of unlawfully implemented aid - Proceedings stayed pending the adoption of a new Commission decision - Exceptional circumstances liable to limit the obligation to repay)
   2010/C 113/18
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d'État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF), in liquidation, Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication

      Defendant: Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — State aid — Export aid in the book trade — Obligation to repay aid unlawfully put into effect — Possibility of suspending repayment of the aid pending a final decision of the Commission on the compatibility of the aid with the Treaty — Admissibility of the obligation to repay the aid being limited on the ground of an exceptional circumstance

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A national court before which an application has been brought, on the basis of Article 88(3) EC, for repayment of unlawful State aid may not stay the adoption of its decision on that application until the Commission of the European Communities has ruled on the compatibility of the aid with the common market following the annulment of a previous positive decision;

               2.

               The adoption by the Commission of the European Communities of three successive decisions declaring aid to be compatible with the common market, which were subsequently annulled by the Community judicature, is not, in itself, capable of constituting an exceptional circumstance such as to justify a limitation of the recipient’s obligation to repay that aid, in the case where that aid was implemented contrary to Article 88(3) EC.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 21.3.2009.


title: Case T-445/10: Action brought on 28 September 2010 — HerkuPlast Kubern v OHIM — How (eco-pack)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/45

         Action brought on 28 September 2010 — HerkuPlast Kubern v OHIM — How (eco-pack)
   (Case T-445/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/79
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: HerkuPlast Kubern GmbH (Ering, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Heidi A.T. How (Harrow, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 July 2010 in Case R 1014/2009-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Heidi A.T. How.

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word element ‘eco-pack’, for goods in Class 16.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark and international registration ‘ECOPAK’ for goods in Class 20.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, and infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 in so far as the Board of Appeal dismissed altogether the existence of any likelihood of confusion, its reasoning is, at various points, inherently contradictory and it inappropriately rejected as irrelevant arguments submitted by the applicant that are in fact relevant.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-55/04: Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 71/18                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
—     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs of this               Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission
      action.                                                              of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-55/04)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2004/C 71/32)
The Portuguese rule in Article 508 of the Civil Code, which
provides, essentially in so far as it deals with strict liability, for
maximum amounts of compensation which are lower than
the minimum guarantee amounts laid down in the Second                      An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Compulsory Motor Insurance Directive, is incompatible with                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February
that Directive.                                                            2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by A. Borde, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ L 8 of 11.1.1984, p. 17.
                                                                           The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                           the Court should:
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Action brought on 10 February 2004 by the Commission                             Council Directive 2002/11/EC of 14 February 2002 on
of the European Communities against the Republic of                              the marketing of material for the vegetative propagation
                                Austria                                          of the vine and repealing Directive 74/649/EEC (1), and
                                                                                in any event by failing to notify them to the Commission,
                           (Case C-54/04)                                        the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under that directive;
                           (2004/C 71/31)
                                                                           2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                 Pleas in law and main arguments
10 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker and Gregorio
Valero Jordana, acting as Agents, with an address for service in           The period prescribed for the transposition of that directive
Luxembourg.                                                                expired on 23 February 2003.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           (1) OJ 2002 L 53, p. 20.
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative measures necessary to comply with
      Directive 2001/80/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of
      emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large
      combustion plants (1), or, in any event, by failing to
      inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Austria
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;           Action brought on 11 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the French Republic
2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-59/04)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2004/C 71/33)
The period for transposition of the directive expired on
27 November 2002.
                                                                           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 February
(1) OJ 2001 L 309, p. 1.                                                   2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by K. Banks, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-109/09: Action brought on 17 March 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires (PROTIVITAL)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/41

         Action brought on 17 March 2009 — Rintisch v OHIM — Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires (PROTIVITAL)
   (Case T-109/09)
   2009/C 113/82
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Bernhard Rintisch (Bottrop, Germany) (represented by: A. Dreyer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valfeuri Pates Alimentaires SA (Wittenheim, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 January 2009 in case R 1660/2007-4; and

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PROTIVITAL’, for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30 — application No 4 843 331

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the word mark ‘PROTI’ for goods in classes 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘PROTIPOWER’ for goods in classes 5, 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the word mark ‘PROTIPLUS’ for goods in classes 5, 29 and 32; German trade mark registration of the trade word ‘PROTITOP’ for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘PROTI’ for goods in classes 5 and 29

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to assess the opposition on its merits; Infringement of Article 74(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to exercise discretion or at least failed to state reasons how it exercised discretion; Misuse of power as the Board of Appeal erred by not taking into account documents and evidence submitted by the applicant.


title: Case C-48/04: Action brought on 6 February 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
20.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 71/17
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare, principally, that, by having failed to adopt the
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with                         order to comply with Directive 2000/76/EC (1)of the
                                                                                European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December
      —     Directive 1999/45/EC of the European Parliament                      2000 on the incineration of waste, the Portuguese
            and of the Council of 31 May 1999 concerning                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
            the approximation of the laws, regulations and                       Article 21(1) of Directive 2000/76/EEC;
            administrative provisions of the Member States
            relating to the classification, packaging and labelling        —     declare, in the alternative, that by failing to have immedi-
            of dangerous preparations (1) and                                    ately informed the Commission of any such provisions,
                                                                                the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
      —     Commission Directive 2001/60/EC of 7 August                          under Article 21(1) of Directive 2000/76/EEC;
            2001 adapting to technical progress Directive 1999/
            45/EC of the European Parliament and of the                    —     order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
            Council concerning the approximation of the laws,
            regulations and administrative provisions of the
            Member States relating to the classification, packag-
            ing and labelling of dangerous preparations (2),               Pleas in law and main arguments
      or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of
      those provisions, the French republic has failed to fulfil           The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive expired
      its obligations under those directives;                              on 28 December 2002.
2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 332 of 28.12.2000, p. 91.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The period prescribed for implementation of those two
directives expired on 30 July 2002.
                                                                           Action brought on 9 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Portuguese
(1) OJ 1999 L 200, p. 1.                                                                                Republic
(2) OJ 2002 L 226, p. 5.
                                                                                (Case C-50/04)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/30)
                                                                           An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
Action brought on 6 February 2004 by the Commission
                                                                           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                           on 9 February 2004 by the Commission of the European
                              Republic
                                                                           Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Gonçalo
                                                                           Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                          (Case C-48/04)                                   Luxembourg.
                          (2004/C 71/29)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           —     declare that, by maintaining in force Article 508(1) of the
                                                                                Portuguese Civil Code, the Portuguese Republic has failed
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                            to fulfil its obligations under Article 1(2) of Directive 84/
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                          5/EEC (1) of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of
on 6 February 2004 by the Commission of the European                             the laws of the Member States relating to insurance
Communities, represented by A. Caeiros and M. Konstantinidis,                    against civil liability in respect of the use of motor
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                     vehicles;