title: Case T-216/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 — Mebrom v Commission (Protection of the ozone layer — Importation of methyl bromide into the European Union — Refusal to allocate an import quota to the applicant for critical use for 2005 — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Implementation of Articles 3, 4, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/22

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 — Mebrom v Commission
   (Case T-216/05) (1)

   (Protection of the ozone layer - Importation of methyl bromide into the European Union - Refusal to allocate an import quota to the applicant for critical use for 2005 - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Implementation of Articles 3, 4, 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty)
   (2007/C 155/44)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Mebrom NV (Rieme-Ertvelde, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and X. Lewis, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of an alleged decision addressed to the applicant relating to the allocation of import quotas for methyl bromide for 2005, contained in the Commission's letter to the applicant of 11 April 2005
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.7.2005.


title: Case C-249/10 P: Appeal brought on 18 May 2010 by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/26

         Appeal brought on 18 May 2010 by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-249/10 P)
   ()
   2010/C 209/37
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd (represented by: L. Ruessmann, A. Willems, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Confédération européenne de l'industrie de la chaussure (CEC)

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Set aside the Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 insofar as the General Court did not annul the contested Regulation and insofar as it ordered the Appellants to bear the costs incurred for the procedure before the General Court;

               —

               Adopt a definitive ruling and annul the contested Regulation in its entirety;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the appeal and of the procedure before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court:

               Erred in law in finding that Articles 2(7) and 9(5) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation (1) do not oblige the Institutions to make market economy treatment (‘MET’) and individual treatment (‘IT’) determinations in situations where they apply sampling;

               Erred in law in failing to find that the Institutions violated Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation by not issuing the MET/IT determinations of the sampled Chinese exporting producers within three months of the initiation of the investigation;

               Erred in law in failing to find that the Institutions violated Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation by not informing the non-sampled Chinese exporting producers regarding the examination of their MET/IT claims within three months of the initiation of the investigation;

               Erred in law in failing to find that the Institutions did not establish cooperation during the investigation and therefore that the Community industry did not meet the standing requirement imposed by Article 4(1) juncto Article 5(4) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, resulting in an erroneous injury and causation assessment in terms of Article 3 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation;

               Erred in law in finding that Article 6(1) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation does not prohibit the Institutions from collecting sampling information prior to the initiation of the investigation;

               In the alternative, erred in law in failing to find that the Institutions did not violate Article 6(9) of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation by exceeding the 15-month deadline for concluding an anti-dumping investigation;

               Erred in law when making its characterisation of the legal effects of various information on the injury analysis pursuant to Article 3 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation;

               Erred in law in failing to find that the Institutions did not respect their duty to carefully and impartially examine all relevant aspects of the anti-dumping investigation;

               Erred in law when making its characterisation of the legal effects of certain information on the obligation of the investigating authority to state reasons;

               Erred in law in failing to find that the Institutions' failure to assess the impact on the Community industry of factors other than the imports concerned violated Article 3 of the Basic Anti Dumping Regulation.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community
   OJ L 56, p. 1


title: Case T-411/12: Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PHARMASTREET — Earlier national word mark PHARMASEE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/78

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 June 2013 — Celtipharm v OHIM — Alliance Healthcare France (PHARMASTREET)
   (Case T-411/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PHARMASTREET - Earlier national word mark PHARMASEE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 225/173
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Celtipharm (Vannes, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and C. Fendeleur, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Alliance Healthcare France SA (Gennevilliers, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Celtipharm and Alliance Healthcare France SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 June 2012 (Case R 767/2011-2);

               2.

               Upholds the opposition as regards goods in Class 5 corresponding to the description ‘pharmaceutical preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use’, on the one hand, and services in Class 35 corresponding to the description ‘business management, business administration and office functions’, on the other;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Case C-532/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 29 December 2006 — Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonimi Techniki Etairia Meleton kai Epivlepseon and Nikolaos Vlachopoulos v Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki A.E., Aikaterini Georgoula, Dim. Vasios, N. Loukatos & Sinergates Anonimi Etairia Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki A.E., A. Pantazis — Pan. Kiriopoulou & Sinergates ( Filon ) O.E. and Nikolaos Sideris

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 29 December 2006 — Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonimi Techniki Etairia Meleton kai Epivlepseon and Nikolaos Vlachopoulos v Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki A.E., Aikaterini Georgoula, Dim. Vasios, N. Loukatos & Sinergates Anonimi Etairia Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki A.E., A. Pantazis — Pan. Kiriopoulou & Sinergates (‘Filon’) O.E. and Nikolaos Sideris
   (Case C-532/06)
   (2007/C 56/36)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Emm. G. Lianakis AE, Sima Anonimi Techniki Etairia Meleton kai Epivlepseon and Nikolaos Vlachopoulos

      Defendants: Dimos Alexandroupolis, Planitiki A.E., Aikaterini Georgoula, Dim. Vasios, N. Loukatos & Sinergates Anonimi Etairia Meleton, Eratosthenis Meletitiki A.E., A. Pantazis — Pan. Kiriopoulou & Sinergates (‘Filon’) O.E. and Nikolaos Sideris
   Question referred
   If the tender notice for the award of a contract for services makes provision only for the order of priority of the award criteria, without stipulating the weighting factors for each criterion, does Article 36 of Directive 92/50/EEC (1) relating to the coordination of the procedures for the award of public service contracts allow criteria to be weighted by the evaluation committee at a later date and, if so, under what conditions?

      (1)  OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.


title: Case T-420/09: Order of the General Court of 22 May 2014  — BSA v OHIM — Loblaws (PRÉSIDENT)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/71

         Order of the General Court of 22 May 2014 — BSA v OHIM — Loblaws (PRÉSIDENT)
   (Case T-420/09) (1)

   2014/C 315/116
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 January 2001 in Case C-403/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Cagliari, Italy): Azienda Agricola Monte Arcosu Srl v Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, Organismo Comprensoriale No 24 della Sardegna, Ente Regionale per l'Assistenza Tecnica in Agricoltura (ERSAT) (Agriculture — Farmer practising farming as his main occupation — Concept — Private limited company)

text:
2.6.2001                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 161/1
                                                                          I
                                                                    (Information)
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities of 26 August 1996 rejecting Mr Gevaert’s
                                                                                request for a review of his classification in grade;
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                              3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
                         of 11 January 2001                                         all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance
                                                                                and the Court of Justice.
in Case C-389/98 P: Hans Gevaert v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)                                  (1) OJ C 397, 19.12.1998.
(Appeals — Officials — Request for review of classification
in grade — Action — Expiry of time-limits — New fact —
                       Inequality of treatment)
                           (2001/C 161/01)                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                of 11 January 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        in Case C-403/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    in the European Court Reports)                            the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Cagliari, Italy): Azienda
                                                                              Agricola Monte Arcosu Srl v Regione Autonoma della
                                                                              Sardegna, Organismo Comprensoriale No 24 della Sardeg-
In Case C-389/98 P: Hans Gevaert, an official of the Com-                     na, Ente Regionale per l’Assistenza Tecnica in Agricoltura
mission of the European Communities, residing in Merelbeke                                                  (ERSAT) (1)
(Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst — application for an
appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of the                (Agriculture — Farmer practising farming as his main
European Communities (First Chamber) of 19 August 1998 in                          occupation — Concept — Private limited company)
Case T-160/97 Gevaert v Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-
465 and II-1363, seeking to have that order set aside:
                                                                                (2001/C 161/02)
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valses-
ia, C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche) — the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
President of the Fifth Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rappor-
teur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 January                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
2001, in which it:                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 19 August        In Case C-403/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      1998 in Case T-160/97 Gevaert v Commission;                             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale Civile
 ---pagebreak--- C 161/2                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              2.6.2001
e Penale di Cagliari (Civil and Criminal District Court, Cagliari),        B. Uriarte Valiente, Avocats — application for an appeal
Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                 against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European
before that court between Agricola Monte Arcosu Srl and                    Communities (First Chamber) of 14 October 1998 in Case
Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, Organismo Comprensoria-                   T-224/97 Martı́nez del Peral Cagigal v Commission [1998]
le No 24 della Sardegna, Ente Regionale per l’Assistenza                   ECR-SC I-A-581 and II-1741, seeking to have that order set
Tecnica in Agricoltura (ERSAT) — on the interpretation of                  aside: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 of                      J. Guerra Fernandez and F. Duvieusart-Clotuche) — the Court
12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency of agricultural                  (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting as
structures (OJ 1985 L 93, p. 1) and of Article 5(5) of Council             President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on improving                   Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
the efficiency of agricultural structures (OJ 1991 L 218, p. 1)            for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 January 2001,
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,                      in which it:
President of the Chamber, V. Skouris and F. Macken (Rappor-
teur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal           1.    Sets aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                        European Communities of 14 October 1998 in Case
11 January 2001, in which it has ruled:                                          T-224/97 Martı́nez del Peral Cagigal v Commission;
                                                                           2.    Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European
The last subparagraph of Article 2(5) of Council Regulation (EEC)                Communities of 24 October 1996 rejecting Mrs Martı́nez del
No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency of                        Peral Cagigal’s request for a review of her classification in grade,
agricultural structures and the last subparagraph of Article 5(5) of             upheld by the decision of the Commission of 29 April 1997
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 of 15 July 1991 on                           rejecting the complaint lodged on 23 January 1997;
improving the efficiency of agricultural structures may not be relied
on before a national court by limited companies seeking to obtain the      3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
status of farmers practising farming as their main occupation where              all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance
the legislature of a Member State has not adopted the provisions                 and the Court of Justice.
necessary for their implementation in the national legal system.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 48, 20.2.1999.
( 1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 11 January 2001
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           in Case C-464/98 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
                         of 11 January 2001                                the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria)]:
                                                                           Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Friedrich Ste-
in Case C-459/98 P: Isabel Martı́nez del Peral Cagigal v                          fan, in the presence of: Republik Österreich (1)
        Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (National rules prohibiting the registration of mortgages in
                                                                           foreign currencies — Breach of that prohibition before
(Appeal — Officials — Application for review of classifi-                  Community law entered into force in Austria — Interpret-
cation in grade — Action — Expiry of time-limits — New                     ation of Article 73b of the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC)
                material fact — Equal treatment)                           — Whether Community law can operate to remedy the
                                                                                registration)
                           (2001/C 161/03)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/04)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(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-459/98 P: Isabel Martı́nez del Peral Cagigal, an                 In Case C-464/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
official of the Commission of the European Communities,                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesgericht für
residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by A. Creus and                Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Regional Civil Court, Vienna), Austria,


title: Case C-519/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra — Portugal) — Superfoz — Supermercados Lda v Fazenda Pública (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 — Official controls of feed and food — Funding of official controls — Articles 26 and 27 — General taxation — Fees or charges — Charge on retail food outlets)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/15

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra — Portugal) — Superfoz — Supermercados Lda v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-519/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 - Official controls of feed and food - Funding of official controls - Articles 26 and 27 - General taxation - Fees or charges - Charge on retail food outlets))
   (2017/C 309/20)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal de Coimbra

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Superfoz — Supermercados Lda

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 26 and 27 of Regulation No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014, must be interpreted as not precluding the imposition of a charge, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, on retail food outlets only, where the revenue from that charge is not used specifically to finance official controls that have been caused by, or that are for the benefit of, those chargeable persons.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case T-471/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Xellia Pharmaceuticals and Alpharma v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram — Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ — Potential competition — Generic medicinal products — Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents — Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking — Duration of the Commission’s investigation — Rights of the defence — Fines — Legal certainty — Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis)

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Xellia Pharmaceuticals and Alpharma v Commission
   (Case T-471/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreement concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Duration of the Commission’s investigation - Rights of the defence - Fines - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis))
   (2016/C 392/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS (Copenhagen, Denmark), and Alpharma, LLC, formerly Zoetis Products LLC (Florham Park, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: D. Hull, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by B. Rayment, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Xellia Pharmaceuticals ApS and Alpharma LLC to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Removal from the register of C-281/94

text:
C 295/26                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27 . 9 . 97
removal from the register of Case C-58/96 : Kingdom of                           Removal from the register of C-330/96 (')
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities,                                                  ( 97/C 295/50 )
supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland .
                                                                        By order of 25 June 1997 the President of the Court of
(') OJ C 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .                                          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                        removal from the register of Case C-330/96 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic .
                                                                        (') OJ C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
         Removal from the register of C-2 17/96 (')
                            ( 97/C 295/47)
By order of 13 May 1997 the President of the Court of                            Removal from the register of C-331/96 (')
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-2 17/96 : Kingdom of                                            ( 97/C 295/51 )
Belgium v. Commission of the European Communities ,
supported by French Republic and United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland .                                    By order of 25 June 1997 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
H OJ C 269, 14 . 9 . 1996 .                                             removal from the register of Case C-331/96 : Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
                                                                        (') OJ C 370, 7. 12 . 1996 .
          Removal from the register of C-3 96/95 (')
                            ( 97/C 295/48 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-281/94 ( 1 )
By order of 19 June 1997 the President of the Court of                                               ( 97/C 295/52 )
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-396/95 : Federal
Republic of Germany v. Commission of the European                       By order of 26 June 1997 the President of the Court of
Communities, supported by French Republic and United                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland .                         removal from the register of Case C-281/94: Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
 w OJ C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                         H OJ C 351 , 10 . 12 . 1994 .
          Removal from the register of C-l 84/95 (')
                             ( 97/C 295/49 )                                       Removal from the register of C-97/97 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 295/53 )
 By order of 24 June 1997 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
 removal from the register of Case C-l 84/95 ( reference for             By order of 1 July 1997 the President of the Court of
 a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado do lo Social No 2,               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
 Santiago do Compostela ): Mercedes Lores Guillfn v. Insti              removal from the register of Case C-97/97 ( reference for a
 tute Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la                    preliminary ruling from the Retten i Arhus ): Elly Bach v.
 Seguridad Social .                                                      Arhus Amtskommune.
 (') OJ C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .                                            (') OJ C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.


title: Case C-128/01: Action brought on 20 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 161/8                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.6.2001
b)     Failure to comply with Article 10 of                            3.     Is the Chamber obliged, pursuant to the case-law of the
       Directive 94/47/EC                                                    Court of Justice, to refrain from applying the provision
                                                                             concerning the prescriptive period?
Article 12 of Decree No 427/98 does not lay down any
penalties or specify any other type of consequence resulting           (1) OJ L 283, 28.10.1980, p. 3.
from a vendor’s failure to comply with its obligation to provide
any person requesting the same with a document setting out
at least brief and accurate information on the particulars
mentioned in points (a) to (g), (i) and (1) of the annex to the
directive. In particular, the decree does not provide for any
fine or similar sanction in the event of omission of the
particulars mentioned in points (a), (b), (c), (i) and (1) of the
annex to the directive.
                                                                       Action brought on 20 March 2001 by the Commission of
Furthermore, the information in question must be given in the            the European Communities against the Italian Republic
document mentioned not only to ensure effective protection
of purchasers, but also to avoid distortions of competition
between vendors at the level of the internal market.                                             (Case C-128/01)
For those reasons, the Commission submits that Article 10 of                                     (2001/C 161/15)
the directive has not been fully and properly transposed by the
Italian Republic.                                                      An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 March
                                                                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(1) OJ L 280, 1994, p. 83.                                             represented by Luca Visaggio, acting as Agent.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                             and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996 (1) amending
                                                                             Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feeding-
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht                    stuffs, or by failing to communicate such provisions, the
Leipzig, by order of that court of 21 February 2001 in the                   Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
   case of Peter Pflücke against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit                    that directive and the Treaty;
                                                                       —     order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-125/01)
                         (2001/C 161/14)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 According to Article 249 EC, directives are binding upon the
European Communities by order of the Sozialgericht Leipzig             Member States as to the result to be achieved. Article 10 EC
(Leipzig Social Court) of 21 February 2001, received at the            provides that the Member States are to take all appropriate
Court Registry on 19 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in           measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment
the case of Peter Pflücke against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit on          of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from
the following questions:                                               action taken by the institutions of the Community, and to
                                                                       facilitate the achievement of the Community’s tasks.
1.    Is a prescriptive period for bringing claims for payment
      by the guarantee institution of outstanding wage claims
      compatible with Article 9 of Council Directive                   The Commission submits that, because the Italian Republic
      80/98/EEC (1) of 20 October 1980 on the approximation            failed to adopt, or to communicate, the provisions necessary
      of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection      to conform to the directive mentioned, it has failed to fulfil its
      of employees in the event of the insolvency of their             obligations under the directive and the Treaty.
      employer?
2.    Does the Court of Justice share the Chamber’s view that          (1) OJ L 235, 1996, p. 39.
      such a prescriptive period does not constitute a legal
      provision which is more favourable to employees within
      the meaning of Article 9 of Directive 80/987/EEC?


title: Case F-15/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Andres and Others v ECB (Civil service — ECB staff — Reform of the insurance scheme — Freezing of the pension plan — Implementation of the pensions regime — Consultation of the supervisory committee — Consultation of the staff committee — Consultation of the General Council — Consultation of the Governing Council — Triennial assessment of the pension plan — Infringement of the conditions of employment — Manifest error of assessment — Principle of proportionality — Acquired rights — Principle of legal certainty and foreseeability — Duty to provide information)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/29

      Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Andres and Others v ECB
      (Case F-15/10) (1)

      (Civil service - ECB staff - Reform of the insurance scheme - Freezing of the pension plan - Implementation of the pensions regime - Consultation of the supervisory committee - Consultation of the staff committee - Consultation of the General Council - Consultation of the Governing Council - Triennial assessment of the pension plan - Infringement of the conditions of employment - Manifest error of assessment - Principle of proportionality - Acquired rights - Principle of legal certainty and foreseeability - Duty to provide information)
      (2014/C 71/55)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Carlos Andres and Others (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: C. Kroppenstedt and F. Malfrère, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

         Re:

      First, application to annul the applicants’ salary slips for June 2009, and all the subsequent salary slips and those to be issued in the future, in so far as those slips constitute the implementation of the reform of the pensions regime decided upon on 4 May 2009. Secondly, an application for compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Tribunal:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Mr Andres and the 168 other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.

         (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010, p. 54.


title: Case T-505/08: Action brought on 25 November 2008 — Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein v OHIM (Hunter)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/49

         Action brought on 25 November 2008 — Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein v OHIM (Hunter)
   (Case T-505/08)
   (2009/C 44/87)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Nadine Trautwein Rolf Trautwein GbR, Research and Development (Leopoldshöhe, Germany) (represented by C. Czychowski, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2008 in Case R 1733/2007-1, as well as the decision of the examiner of 17 October 2007 and admit Community trade mark application No 4829347 for publication; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Hunter’ for goods in classes 18 and 25 (Application No 4 829 347)

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that the trade mark neither can be denied the necessary distinctive character nor involves a descriptive indication.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-38/17: Action brought on 20 January 2017 — DQ and Others v Parliament

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/53

         Action brought on 20 January 2017 — DQ and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-38/17)
   (2017/C 104/74)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: DQ and thirteen other parties (represented by: Mr Casado García Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the present application is admissible;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 92 200 for the material damage caused;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the expenses in the context of the present action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging various faults or omissions committed by the administration of the defendant and which caused the material damage suffered by the applicants, namely all of the lawyer’s fees incurred in the context of their request for assistance introduced on 24 January 2014 under the first subparagraph of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging unlawful conduct, in particular corruption detrimental to the interests of the European Union in the selection procedures of candidates, abuse and intimidation by the head of unit of the applicants in the daily exercise of their activities.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging prejudice caused by that conduct to the applicants’ dignity, and to their psychological and physical integrity adversely affecting their professional careers and their family lives.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging real and existing material damage suffered by the applicants and which is closely linked with the malice with which the European Parliament acted with regard to them, and with numerous steps they had to take, in particular as regards the need to have recourse to the advice of a lawyer.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the applicants’ superiors failed to respond to the applicants despite the urgency and seriousness of the facts alleged by the latter. The applicants consider in particular that those facts should have led to action on the part of their superiors in order to bring to an end:

                           —

                           the unlawful activities;

                           —

                           the abusive and intimidating conduct of their head of unit and the unreasonable deadline of the administration for taking measures;

                           —

                           their difficult work conditions, which could have avoided a continued intervention of their lawyer.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging exceptional circumstances which would have made the intervention of a lawyer necessary or even essential in order to safeguard the rights of the applicants and to obtain an action of the Appointing Authority to deal with their allegations of psychological and sexual harassment to which they were exposed. The intervention of their lawyer was also justified in order to ensure the confidentiality of their testimonies, and to be protected from legal inconsistencies and the negligence of their superiors, and that with the aim of bringing to an end their unacceptable work conditions.


title: Case T-419/04: Action brought on 8 October 2004 by Nadine Schmit against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/40

         Action brought on 8 October 2004 by Nadine Schmit against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-419/04)
   (2005/C 6/79)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 October 2004 by Nadine Schmit, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten and Pierre Jadoul, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the explicit rejection of 8 July 2004 of the applicant's complaint, the decision not to draw up an evaluation report for the period 2001-2002 and the authority's decision not to include her in the number of officials promoted to Grade C2 in the promotion year 2003;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000 by way of compensation for her non-material damage;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official of the Commission, took sick leave in October 2002. She has received an invalidity pension since September 2003. It was on that basis that the appointing authority decided not to draw up a staff report for the applicant for the period 2001-2002. She therefore received no merit or priority points for the promotion year 2003 and her name was not included in the list of officials promoted to Grade C2.
   The applicant challenges the decisions at issue, pleading infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of the general provisions implementing that article (decision of the Commission of 26 April 2002) and of the principles of equal treatment and proper administration. In that context, the applicant claims that the Commission was not entitled, at the end of 2002 or at the beginning of 2003, to regard the applicant as an official less than a year away from retirement for whom there was no reason to draw up a staff report. Challenging the decision not to promote her to Grade C2, the applicant alleges breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and of the principles of equal treatment and proper administration.


title: Case T-343/08: Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Arkema France v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in sodium chlorate — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Imputability of the infringement — Fines — Aggravating circumstance — Repeat infringement — Mitigating circumstance — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Significant added value)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Arkema France v Commission
   (Case T-343/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in sodium chlorate - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Imputability of the infringement - Fines - Aggravating circumstance - Repeat infringement - Mitigating circumstance - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Significant added value)
   2011/C 186/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Arkema France (Colombes, France) (represented by: initially A. Winckler, S. Sorinas and H. Kanellopoulos, then S. Sorinas, E. Jégou and M. Sabeva, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis, É. Gippini Fournier and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Principally, action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 2626 final of 11 June 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) EEA (Case COMP/38.695 — Sodium Chlorate), in so far as that decision relates to Arkema France and, in the alternative, action for annulment or reduction of the amounts of the fines imposed on that company in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Arkema France to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case T-732/15 R II: Order of the President of the General Court of 13 June 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission (Application for interim measures — Environment — Consumer protection — Regulation fixing maximum residue levels for guazatine — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — New application — No new facts — No urgency)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/24

         Order of the President of the General Court of 13 June 2016 — ICA Laboratories and Others v Commission
   (Case T-732/15 R II)
   ((Application for interim measures - Environment - Consumer protection - Regulation fixing maximum residue levels for guazatine - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - New application - No new facts - No urgency))
   (2016/C 314/33)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: ICA Laboratories Close Corp. (Century City, South Africa); ICA International Chemicals (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City); ICA Developments (Proprietary) Ltd (Century City) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, R. Crespi and P. Sellar, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: X. Lewis and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, pursuant to Article 160 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, for suspension of the operation of Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/1910 of 21 October 2015 amending Annexes III and V to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for guazatine in or on certain products (OJ 2015 L 280, p. 2).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-435/07: Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 23 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-435/07) (1)

   (2008/C 79/47)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-37/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Admissibility — Regulation No 1234/2007 — Article 115 — Annex XV — Point I(2) — Appendix to Annex XV — Part A — Sales designations ‘butter’ and ‘dairy spread’ — Sales designation ‘pomazánkové máslo’ (butter spread) — List of derogations)

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 October 2012 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-37/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Admissibility - Regulation No 1234/2007 - Article 115 - Annex XV - Point I(2) - Appendix to Annex XV - Part A - Sales designations ‘butter’ and ‘dairy spread’ - Sales designation ‘pomazánkové máslo’ (butter spread) - List of derogations)
   2012/C 379/10
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Z. Malůšková and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, T. Müller and J. Očková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 115 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1), in conjunction with point I(2) of Annex XV to that regulation and part A of the appendix to that annex — Legislation of a Member State authorising the marketing of a product corresponding to the sales designation ‘dairy spread’ under the sales designation ‘pomazánkové máslo’ (butter spread)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by authorising pomazánkové máslo (butter spread) to be sold under the designation ‘máslo’ (butter) even though that product has a milk fat content of less than 80 % and water and dry non-fat milk-material contents of more than 16 % and 2 % respectively, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 115 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) in conjunction with the first and second subparagraphs of point I(2) of Annex XV to that regulation and points 1 and 4 of part A of the appendix to that annex;

               2.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 2 June 2005 in Case C-174/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 56 EC — Automatic suspension of voting rights in privatised undertakings)

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 2 June 2005
   in Case C-174/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 56 EC - Automatic suspension of voting rights in privatised undertakings)
   (2005/C 205/08)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-174/04, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and C. Loggi) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by P. Gentili, avvocato) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 13 April 2004 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, N. Colneric, K. Schiemann and E. Juhász, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 June 2005 in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by maintaining in force Decree-Law (decreto-legge) No 192 of 25 May 2001, converted into Law No 301, entitled ‘Urgent provisions to ensure the liberalisation and privatisation of specific public service sectors’ (legge no 301, recante disposizioni urgenti per salvaguardare i processi di liberalizzazione e privatizzazione di specifici settori dei servizi publici), of 20 July 2001, which provides for the automatic suspension of voting rights attaching to holdings in excess of 2 % of the capital of undertakings operating in the electricity and gas sectors, where those holdings are acquired by public undertakings not quoted on regulated financial markets and enjoying a dominant position in their own domestic markets, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 12.06.2004.


title: Case F-31/12: Action brought on 6 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/31

         Action brought on 6 March 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-31/12)
   2012/C 133/63
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to transfer pension rights acquired before the applicant’s entry into service at the Commission on the basis of the proposal recalculated by the PMO.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision annulling and replacing the proposals for the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights made in his application under Article 11(2) in Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations, which contains a new proposal calculated on the basis of the GIPs adopted on 3 March 2011.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Köln by order of 2 December 1998 in the case of Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und Gewerbe Köln e.V. v Adolf Darbo AG (Case C-465/98)

text:
13.3.1999              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 71/7
(b) Does Article 73b of the EC Treaty apply retroactively          Justice of the European Communities on 18 December
     to mortgages which were registered in German marks             1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,
     prior to the accession of Austria to the European              represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, acting as
     Community, and thus incurably void at the time of              Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     registration, in such a way as to remedy them ex post          office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal
     facto?'                                                        Service of the Commission, Centre Wagner.
     Alternatively,
                                                                    The Applicant claims that the Court should:
     Have the Community rules concerning the free
     movement of capital, in particular Article 73b of the
     EC Treaty, had the effect, by virtue of the accession
     application made by Austria on 17 July 1989 and the            1) declare that by concluding and applying an Air
     Opinion of 31 July 1991, of rendering the registration             Services Agreement signed on 23 July 1977 with the
     of a foreign-currency mortgage in Austria on                       United States of America which provides for the
     16 December 1991 permissible?'                                     revocation, suspension or limitation of traffic rights in
                                                                        cases where air carriers designated by the United
                                                                        Kingdom are not owned by the United Kingdom or
                                                                        nationals of the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom
                                                                        is in breach of Article 52 of the Treaty;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandes-
gericht Köln by order of 2 December 1998 in the case of
Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und Gewerbe Köln e.V.                2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
                       v Adolf Darbo AG
                        (Case C-465/98)
                         (1999/C 71/12)                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 2 December 1998                    A Member State must allow nationals of any other
from the Oberlandesgericht Köln (Higher Regional Court,             Member State to set up businesses and pursue the same on
Cologne), which was received at the Court Registry on               national conditions: anything less would render the right
18 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of           of establishment pointless, an empty shell. Article 52 is
Verein gegen Unwesen in Handel und Gewerbe Köln e.V. v              not concerned with how and whether the right to supply
Adolf Darbo AG on the following question:                           services to another Member State may be exercised or
                                                                    restricted (which is governed at Community level by a
                                                                    separate Treaty article, Article 59) but, simply with the
Is it contrary to Article 2(1)(a)(i) of Directive 79/112/EEC
                                                                    right to be treated as a national of the Member State for
(OJ L 33, 8.2.1979, p. 1) (the directive on labelling') for
                                                                    the purposes of its business where an undertaking is
jam manufactured in a Member State (Austria) and sold
                                                                    established in that same Member State.
there and in another Member State (the Federal Republic
of Germany) under the description naturrein' (naturally
pure') to contain the gelling agent pectin and less than
0.01 mg/kg lead (atomic absorption spectrometry analysis
Ð AAS), 0.008 mg/kg cadmium (AAS), and pesticides                   Article 52 by its very nature does not refer to treatment
(0.016 mg/kg procymidone and 0.005 mg/kg vinclozolin)?              under Community law (for example the rights granted
                                                                    under Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 (1)) as the United
                                                                    Kingdom alleges, but to those granted nationally, in the
                                                                    present case, the rights which the United Kingdom
                                                                    correctly notes derive from bilateral Member State
                                                                    agreements with third countries'. By concluding a
                                                                    so-called open sky' agreement, the United Kingdom
Action brought on 18 December 1998 by the Commission                authorities have granted a right to benefit from the traffic
of the European Communities against the United                      rights granted under the agreement to designated airlines
       Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                if under United Kingdom control since there is no
                        (Case C-466/98)                             possibility for the United States to refuse the same, but
                                                                    they have granted only a possibility, wholly unguaranteed,
                         (1999/C 71/13)                             to benefit therefrom where the designated carrier is
                                                                    controlled by nationals of other Member States. This is a
                                                                    failure by the United Kingdom to grant equal treatment to
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain               nationals of other Member States irrespective of whether
and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of                and how the United States of America excercises its rights.


title: Case T-592/13: Order of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile v OHIM — Norwood Industries (NORTHWOOD professional forest equipment)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/45

         Order of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile v OHIM — Norwood Industries (NORTHWOOD professional forest equipment)
   (Case T-592/13) (1)

   (2014/C 431/70)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case F-22/09: Action brought on 9 March 2009 — Marie-Hélène Willigens v Council

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/47

         Action brought on 9 March 2009 — Marie-Hélène Willigens v Council
   (Case F-22/09)
   2009/C 113/100
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marie-Hélène Willigens (Glabais, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the appointing authority’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case T-575/11: Action brought on 7 November 2011 — Inaporc v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/56

      Action brought on 7 November 2011 — Inaporc v Commission
      (Case T-575/11)
      (2012/C 25/108)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Interprofession nationale porcine (Inaporc) (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Calvet, Y. Trifounovitch and C. Rexha, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul Decision C(2011) 4376 final of 29 June 2011, State aid NN 10/2010 — France — Tax to finance a national pig and pork producers council (not yet published in the Official Journal of the European Union) in so far as it classifies (i) as State aid the action taken by INAPORC between 2004 and 2008 in relation to technical support, assistance with the production and marketing of quality products, research and development, as well as advertising, and (ii) the compulsory voluntary contributions used to finance that action as State resources forming an integral part of the State aid measures referred to above;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law: infringement of essential procedural requirements in so far as the statement of reasons for the contested decision is insufficient having regard to Article 296 TFEU, in that it does not enable the applicant to understand the reasons that led the Commission to consider the criteria established by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to State aid to be satisfied in this instance.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU in that, in the contested decision, the Commission:

                              —

                              classified as State resources the compulsory voluntary contributions levied by Inaporc, and the action which that professional association takes and finances using those contributions as action imputable to the State;

                              —

                              found that there was a selective economic advantage arising from the action taken by Inaporc for the benefit of undertakings engaged in production, processing and distribution in the pigmeat sector;

                              —

                              took the view that the action taken by Inaporc may result in distortion of competition imputable to the State aid.


title: Case C-344/06 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — J.C. Blom v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk — Additional levy — Reference quantity — Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking — SLOM 1983 producers — Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/18

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 — J.C. Blom v Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-344/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Producers who entered into a non-marketing undertaking - SLOM 1983 producers - Failure to resume production on expiry of the undertaking)
   (2007/C 315/30)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Appellant: J.C. Blom (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.C.H Molin, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-M. Colaert, Agent), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and M. van Heezik, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 30 May 2006 in Case T-87/94 J.C. Blom v Council and Commission by which the Court dismissed an application for compensation under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the loss allegedly suffered as a result of the applicant's being prevented from marketing milk pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation No 804/68 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Blom to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 28.10.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case C-36/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Liège): Idéal Tourisme SA v Belgian State (VAT — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Transitional provisions — Retention of the exemption for international passenger transport by air — No exemption for international passenger transport by coach — Discrimination — State aid)

text:
C 335/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         25.11.2000
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                            of 12 September 2000
                           of 13 July 2000                                 in Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98 (references for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling from the Kantongerecht te Nijmegen):
in Case C-36/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                       Pavel Pavlov and Others v Stichting Pensioenfonds
the Tribunal de Première Instance de Liège): Idéal Touris-                                         Medische Specialisten (1)
                     me SA v Belgian State (1)
                                                                           (Compulsory membership of an occupational pension scheme
(VAT — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Transitional pro-                      — Compatibility with competition rules — Classification of
visions — Retention of the exemption for international                             an occupational pension fund as an undertaking)
passenger transport by air — No exemption for international
passenger transport by coach — Discrimination — State                                                   (2000/C 335/04)
                                 aid)
                          (2000/C 335/03)                                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
                    (Language of the case: French)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     In Joined Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98: references to the Court
                   in the European Court Reports)                          under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from
                                                                           the Kantongerecht te Nijmegen (Cantonal Court, Nijmegen),
In Case C-36/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               Netherlands, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de                    pending before that court between Pavel Pavlov and Others
Première Instance de Liège, Belgium, for a preliminary ruling              and Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten — on the
in the proceedings pending before that court between Idéal                 interpretation of Articles 85, 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now
Tourisme SA and Belgian State — on the interpretation                      Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC) — the Court, composed of:
of Articles 12(3) and 28(3)(b) of Sixth Council Directive                  G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                      (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Common                (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ                 J.-P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
1977 L 145, p. 1), in the version of Council Directive 96/95/EC            General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for
of 20 December 1996 amending, with regard to the level of                  the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September 2000, in
the standard rate of value added tax, Directive 77/338 (OJ                 which it has ruled:
1996 L 338, p. 89), and of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Article 87 EC) — the Court (sixth chamber)                1.     Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and
composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the                           81 EC) do not preclude public authorities from making
Chamber, R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur)                         membership of an occupational pension fund compulsory at the
and V. Skouris, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;                              request of a profession’s representative body.
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which it has                2.     A pension fund, such as that in question in the main
ruled:                                                                            proceedings, which itself determines the amount of the contri-
                                                                                butions and benefits and operates on the basis of the principle
In the present state of harmonisation of the laws of the Member                   of capitalisation, which has been made responsible for managing
States relating to the common system of value added tax, the                      a supplementary pension scheme set up by a profession’s
Community principle of equal treatment does not preclude legislation              representative body and membership of which has been made
of a Member State which on the one hand, in accordance with Article               compulsory by the public authorities for all members of that
28(3)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977                     profession, is an undertaking within the meaning of Articles
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                 85 of the Treaty and 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis                  82 EC and 86 EC).
of assessment, in the version of Council Directive 96/95/EC of
20 December 1996 amending, with regard to the level of the                 3.     Articles 86 and 90 of the Treaty do not preclude the public
standard rate of value added tax, Directive 77/388, continues to                  authorities from conferring on a pension fund the exclusive
exempt international passenger transport by air, and on the other                 right to manage a supplementary pension scheme for the
hand taxes international passenger transport by coach.                            members of a profession.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.


title: Case T-300/16: Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/24

         Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Jindal Saw et Jindal Saw Italia v Commission
   (Case T-300/16)
   (2016/C 314/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Jindal Saw Ltd (New Delhi, India) and Jindal Saw Italia SpA (Trieste, Italy) (represented by: R. Antonini and E. Monard, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/387 of 17 March 2016 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron (also known as spheroidal graphite cast iron), originating in India, in so far as it relates to the Applicants; and

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by means of the determination of the export prices, the Commission infringed Articles 2(8), 2(9), 3(2), 3(3), 3(6) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by means of its price effects, injury and causation determinations, the Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(3), 3(5), 3(6), 3(7), 3(8), 4(1), 5(4) and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the failure to disclose essential facts and considerations and to grant sufficient time to submit comments infringed Articles 20(4) and 20(5) of Council Regulation No 1225/2009.


title: Case C-358/06: Action brought on 30 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/7

         Action brought on 30 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-358/06)
   (2006/C 249/15)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis and B. Schima)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/105/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 1 July 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 345, 31.12.2003, p. 97.


title: Case C-337/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Bayerischer Rundfunk, Deutschlandradio, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südwestrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen v GEWA Gesellschaft für Gebäudereinigung und Wartung mbH (Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC — Public service contracts — Public broadcasting bodies — Contracting authorities — Bodies governed by public law — Condition that the activity of the institution be financed, for the most part, by the State )

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/19

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 13 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Bayerischer Rundfunk, Deutschlandradio, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südwestrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen v GEWA Gesellschaft für Gebäudereinigung und Wartung mbH
   (Case C-337/06) (1)

   (Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC - Public service contracts - Public broadcasting bodies - Contracting authorities - Bodies governed by public law - Condition that the activity of the institution be ‘financed, for the most part, by the State’)
   (2008/C 51/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bayerischer Rundfunk, Deutschlandradio, Hessischer Rundfunk, Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Radio Bremen, Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg, Saarländischer Rundfunk, Südwestrundfunk, Westdeutscher Rundfunk, Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen

      Defendant: GEWA Gesellschaft für Gebäudereinigung und Wartung mbH

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Heinz W. Warnecke
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of indent (c) of the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) and Article 16(b) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134 of 30.4.2004, p. 114) — Award of cleaning services by an association of broadcasting bodies indirectly financed by the State without compliance with formal European procurement procedure — Concept of ‘contracting authority’.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The first condition of the third indent of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that there is financing, for the most part, by the State when the activities of public broadcasting bodies such as those in the main proceedings are financed for the most part by a fee payable by persons who possess a receiver, which is imposed, calculated and levied according to rules such as those in the main proceedings;

               2)

               The first condition of the third indent of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Directive 92/50 must be interpreted as meaning that, that, if the activities of public broadcasting bodies such as those in the main proceedings are financed according to the procedures set out when examining the first question, the condition of ‘financing … by the State’ does not require that there be direct interference by the State or by other public authorities in the awarding, by such bodies, of a contract such as that at issue in the main proceedings;

               3)

               Article 1(a)(iv) of Directive 92/50 must be interpreted as meaning that only the public contracts specified in that provision are excluded from the scope of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 18.11.2006.


title: Case C-213/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania) lodged on 4 May 2010 — F-Tex SIA v Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB ‘Jadecloud-Vilma’

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania) lodged on 4 May 2010 — F-Tex SIA v Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB ‘Jadecloud-Vilma’
   (Case C-213/10)
   2010/C 195/12
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: F-Tex SIA

      Defendant: Lietuvos-Anglijos UAB ‘Jadecloud-Vilma’

      Questions referred

               1.

               Having regard to the judgments of the Court of Justice in Gourdain and Seagon, do Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) and Article 1(2)(b) of Regulation No 44/2001 (2) have to be interpreted in such a way that:

                           (a)

                           a national court hearing insolvency proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear an actio Pauliana which derives directly from the insolvency proceedings or is closely connected with them, and exceptions to such jurisdiction can be founded only on other provisions of Regulation No 1346/2000;

                           (b)

                           an actio Pauliana by the sole creditor of an undertaking in respect of which insolvency proceedings have been initiated in one Member State, that:

                                       —

                                       is brought in another Member State,

                                       —

                                       arises from a right of claim against third parties assigned to him by the liquidator on the basis of an agreement for consideration, restricting in that way the extent of the liquidator’s claims in the first Member State, and

                                       —

                                       does not give rise to a danger for other possible creditors,

                                 is to be classified as a civil and commercial matter under Article 1(1) of Regulation No 44/2001?

               2.

               Does an applicant’s right to judicial protection, which is recognised by the Court of Justice as a general principle of European Union law and which is guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, have to be understood and interpreted in such a way that:

                           (a)

                           the national courts having jurisdiction to hear an actio Pauliana (depending upon its connection with the insolvency proceedings) either under Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 or under Article 2(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 cannot both decline jurisdiction;

                           (b)

                           where a court of one Member State has decided to leave an actio Pauliana unheard for want of jurisdiction, a court of another Member State, seeking to safeguard the applicant’s right to a court, has the right to find of its own motion that it itself has jurisdiction, regardless of the fact that according to the provisions of European Union law concerning the determination of international jurisdiction it cannot so decide?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2004 L 12, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by order of that court of 9 September 1996 in the case of Daniele Annibaldi against 1. Municipality of Guidonia and 2. the President of the Lazio Region (Case C-309/96)

text:
9. 11 . 96            I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/21
2 . Having regard to the answer to the first question, do the         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
     said provisions apply to operations of the kind at issue in      Hamburg by order of that court of 12 August 1996
     the present case, where the owners of a hotel in the south       in the case of Lopex Export GmbH v. Hauptzollamt
     of England, as part of their business as hoteliers, offers                                Hamburg-Jonas
     to customers at a single inclusive charge a week's stay at                               ( Case C-3 15/96 )
     the hotel , transport by coach between the hotel and
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/41 )
     points in the north of England, and a local sight-seeing
     trip by coach during their stay at the hotel ( the transport
     elements being bought in by the owners of the hotel from         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     a coach hire company )?                                          European Communities by an order of the Joint Senate of
                                                                      the Finanzgericht Hamburg ( Hamburg Finance Court) for
                                                                      the     Lander of Hamburg, Niedersachsen and
(>) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                              Schleswig-Holstein, Fourth Senate, of 12 August 1996 ,
                                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 26 September
                                                                       1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lopex Export
                                                                      GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following
                                                                      questions :
                                                                      1 . Is the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 13 of
                                                                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 171 5/90 ( 1 ) in so far as it
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                         prescribes that binding tariff information ceases to be
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by                   valid immediately as a result of the adoption of a
order of that court of 9 September 1996 in the case of                    regulation amending the customs nomenclature, with
Daniele Annibaldi against 1 . Municipality of Guidonia and                no transitional period, compatible with Community law
             2 . the President of the Lazio Region                        from the points of view of protection of legitimate
                                                                          expectations and legal certainty ?
                         ( Case C-309/96 )
                           ( 96/C 336/40 )                            2 . If not, what are the consequences in particular in a case
                                                                          where binding tariff information, differing from the
                                                                          amended nomenclature, has been issued and/or there is
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    an export licence with an advance fixing certificate
European Communities by order of the Pretura                              which is still valid for a further six months ?
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome
District Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division ), of 9 September           Is a decision on the limited continuing validity of
1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                        binding tariff information to be measured against the
23 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               general conditions which have been developed on
Daniele Annibaldi against 1 . Municipality of Guidonia and                protection of legitimate expectations, and in particular
2 . the President of the Lazio Region on the following                    does it presuppose an expectation of the exporter to that
questions:                                                                effect which deserves protection as against the
                                                                          Community interest ? Does that also apply with respect
1 . Is a national law which requires undertakings                         to the third indent of Article 14 ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
     incorporated within a nature and archaeological park to              No 1715/90, under which the advance fixing certificate
     refrain from any activity whatsoever in the area                     must have been 'issued on the basis of the said binding
     concerned     —     which    amounts   to   a    substantial         tariff information '
     expropriation of the undertakings incorporated within
     the park itself without any provision being made for             (M OJ No L 160 , 26 . 6 . 1990, p . 1 .
     payment of compensation to the individuals whose
     property is expropriated — in breach of the
     fundamental right to property, to carry on business and
     to equal treatment by the national authorities ?
2 . Irrespective of the answer which the Court of Justice
     may consider appropriate in response to the first                Action brought on 26 September 1996 by the Commis
     question, are the measures provided for by Article 7 of          sion of the European Communities against the Italian
     the regional law in question ( equivalent, for the                                             Republic
     purposes of proceedings under Community law, to any                                     ( Case C-3 16/96 )
     other national legislation ) in breach of the principle of                                 ( 96/C 336/42 )
     equal treatment and the related prohibition of
     discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of
     Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty of Rome ?                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on