title: Case C-279/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Retten i Hørsholm (Denmark) by order of that court of 4 June 2004 in the case of Anklagemyndigheden against Steffen Ryborg

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Retten i Hørsholm (Denmark) by order of that court of 4 June 2004 in the case of Anklagemyndigheden against Steffen Ryborg
   (Case C-279/04)
   (2004/C 228/50)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Retten i Hørsholm (Denmark), by order of 4 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Anklagemyndigheden against Steffen Ryborg.
   The Retten i Hørsholm asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

               1.a.

               Are Article 39 EC, Article 49 EC and Article 10 EC to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from requiring registration of a motor vehicle when the vehicle belongs to an employer established in a neighbouring Member State and is used by an employee who is resident in the first-mentioned Member State for work purposes and during his free time in both Member States?

               1.b

               If in the assessment for question 1.a weight is to be accorded to whether any private use of the vehicle is ancillary to business use, which criteria should be used by the national court in determining whether the non-business use of the vehicle is ancillary to the business use, when it can be assumed that the vehicle is used for business purposes, see Case C-127/86 Yves Ledoux [1988] ECR 3741, paragraph 18?


title: Case C-96/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrĳfsleven by judgment of that Court of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between A. Tempelman and Directeur van de Rĳksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees

text:
24.5.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 124/3
2.     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                        2.    Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive
                                                                                90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order
                                                                                or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-
                                                                                and-mouth disease?
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           3.    What limits does Community law place on a Member
—      Incorrect implementation of Article 5 of the Directive.                   State with regard to taking supplementary national
       The Law transposing Article 5 of Directive 93/13/EEC                      measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
       into Spanish law fails to mention that the rule that the                  511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?
       interpretation that is the most favourable to the consumer
       is to prevail is not to apply in the context of the
       procedures laid down in Article 7(2) of the Directive               (1 ) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.
       (prohibitory actions). Thus a situation is created in which         (2 ) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.
       consumers run the risk that the interpretation rule may
       go counter to their interests, inasmuch as it will be an
       obstacle to the removal from contracts with consumers,
       by means of a prohibitory action, unclear terms which,
       according to a ‘normal’ interpretation, are unfair;
—      incorrect implementation of Article 6(2) of the Directive:
       by referring to the provision ‘in Article 5 of the 1980
       Rome Convention on the Law applicable to Contractual                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
       Obligations’, the Spanish Law limits the protection offered         Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
       by the Directive to consumers, by introducing a twofold             of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between Mr and
       restriction. Thus, the Directive provides for the protection        Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schajk and Directeur van de Rijksdienst
       of all consumers in all contracts concluded with a seller                          voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees
       or supplier, whereas the Spanish Law provides such
       protection only for certain types of contract and only
                                                                                (Case C-97/03)
       where certain conditions are satisfied, a twofold restric-
       tion prohibited by the Directive.
                                                                                (2003/C 124/06)
( 1) Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in
     consumer contracts (OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29).
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
                                                                           voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
                                                                           Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                           4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                           between Mr and Mrs T.H.J.M. van Schajk and Directeur van de
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                      Rijksdienst voor de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the following
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court                    questions:
of 7 January 2003 in the proceedings between A. Tempel-
man and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor de keuring
                         van Vee en Vlees                                  1.    May a Member State derive from Community law the
                                                                                power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of
                                                                                being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth
                           (Case C-96/03)                                        virus?
                          (2003/C 124/05)                                  2.    Does Directive 85/511/EEC (1), as amended by Directive
                                                                                90/423/EEC (2), afford the Member States scope to (order
                                                                                or) take supplementary national measures to control foot-
                                                                                and-mouth disease?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the College van Beroep
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                 3.    What limits does Community law place on a Member
                                                                                State with regard to taking supplementary national
Industry) of 7 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                                measures other than those provided for in Directive 85/
4 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
between A. Tempelman and Directeur van de Rijksdienst voor                       511/EEC, as amended by Directive 90/423/EEC?
de keuring van Vee en Vlees on the following questions:
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 315 [1985], p. 11.
1.     May a Member State derive from Community law the                    (2 ) OJ L 224 [1990], p. 13.
       power to decide to kill animals which are suspected of
       being infected or contaminated with the foot-and-mouth
       virus?


title: Case T-612/15: Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Basic Net v EUIPO (Representation of three vertical stripes) (European Union trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing three vertical stripes — Absolute ground for refusal — Not distinctive — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 July 2017 — Basic Net v EUIPO (Representation of three vertical stripes)
   (Case T-612/15) (1)

   ((European Union trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing three vertical stripes - Absolute ground for refusal - Not distinctive - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 283/50)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Basic Net SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: D. Sindico, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 August 2015 (Case R 2845/2014-1) concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing three vertical stripes as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Basic Net SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.


title: Case T-301/14: Action brought on 2 May 2014  — Michelin Reifenwerke v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/49

         Action brought on 2 May 2014 — Michelin Reifenwerke v Commission
   (Case T-301/14)
   2014/C 223/52
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Michelin Reifenwerke AG & Co. KGaA (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: T. Volz, M. Ringel, B. Wißmann, M. Püstow, C. Oehme and T. Wielsch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 to open the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU against the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the support for renewable electricity and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN), in so far as it applies to the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: No advantage within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicant claims that the reduction of the EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG), does not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In this context, the applicant states that energy-intensive users are not favoured by the arrangement. The special compensation regime is, instead, compensation for exceptional costs which affect the applicant and comparable users to a special degree in the context of the support for renewable electricity, and is intended to re-establish the competitiveness of energy-intensive users who were initially considerably adversely affected by the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: No State resources within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           In addition, the applicant claims that the special compensation regime does not constitute a measure granted ‘by a Member State or through State resources’. The applicant states, in this context, that the EEG-surcharge is not a State resource and that even a waiver of those resources by the special compensation regime cannot therefore constitute a measure granted through State resources.

                           —

                           The EEG-surcharge is not collected, administered or even allocated by the State or by a public or private institution nominated or established by the State. Instead, the EEG-surcharge can be directly collected by the transmission system operators on the basis of a corresponding entitlement under civil law. The EEG-surcharge does not benefit the State budget, and consequently the special compensation regime in no way indirectly or directly reduces State revenue.

                           —

                           The EEG-resources are also not available to State authorities. There is also no public control over the EEG-resources, such as by the Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (Federal Office of Economics and Export Control, BAFA) or the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency).


title: Case C-320/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Ischia (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Multiservice Srl v Telecom Italia SpA

text:
               13.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Ischia (Italy) lodged on 15 July 2008 — Multiservice Srl v Telecom Italia SpA
   (Case C-320/08)
   (2008/C 236/18)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Giudice di Pace di Ischia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Multiservice Srl

      Defendant: Telecom Italia SpA
   Question referred
   Do the Community rules in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Directive 2002/22/EC (1), Directive 1999/44/EC (2), Commission Recommendation 2001/310/EC (3) and Directive 1998/257/EC (4) have direct effect and must they be interpreted as meaning that disputes ‘in the area of electronic communications between end-users and operators concerning non-compliance with the rules on universal service and on the rights of end-users, as laid down in legislation, decisions of the Regulatory Authority, contractual terms and service charters’ (the disputes contemplated by Article 2 of Decision No 173/07/CONS of the Regulatory Authority) must not be made subject to a mandatory attempt at conciliation without which proceedings in that regard may not be brought before the courts, thus taking precedence over the rule laid down in Article 3(1) of Decision No 173/07/CONS?

      (1)  OJ L 108, p. 51.

      (2)  OJ L 171, p. 12.

      (3)  Commission Recommendation.

      (4)  Commission Recommendation.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 24 January 2002 in Case T-38/95 DEP: Groupe Origny SA v Commission of the European Communities (Taxation of costs)

text:
29.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 156/23
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 22 March 2002
                                                                                of 24 January 2002
in Case T-143/93: K. Schumacher v Council of the Euro-
pean Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties (1)
                                                                          in Case T-38/95 DEP: Groupe Origny SA v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Milk
— Producers subscribed to non-marketing or reconversion
undertakings — Proceedings not continued by successors —
                     No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (Taxation of costs)
                         (2002/C 156/43)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/44)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-143/93: K. Schumacher, residing in Kiel (Germany),
represented by C. Paulsen and P. Paulsen, Rechtanwälte, with
an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the
European Union (Agents: A. Brautigam and A.-M. Colaert) and
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Booß,
M. Niejahr, H.-J. Rabe and Núñez-Müller) — application for
compensation pursuant to Articles 178 and the second
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now, Article 235               In Case T-38/95: Groupe Origny SA, established in Paris,
EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) for the loss               represented by X. de Roux, lawyer, with an address for service
suffered by the applicant as a result of having been prevented            in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities
from marketing milk pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)                  (Agent: R. Lyal) — application for taxation of the costs to be
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the                 paid by the defendant to the applicant pursuant to the
application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation           judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases T-25/
(EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ                  95, T-26/95, T-30 to T-32/95, T-34 to T-39/95, T-42 to T-46/
1984 L 93, p. 13), supplemented by Commission Regulation                  95, T-48/95, T-50 to T-65/95, T-68 to T-71/95, T-87/95,
(EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ 1984 L 132, p. 11)                    T-88/95, T-103/95 and T-104/95 [2000] ECR II-491), the
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended                   Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Compo-
Composition), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President                     sition), composed of: M. Jaegar, President, R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges;                K. Lenaerts, P. Lindh and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 22 March 2002, the                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has made an order on
operative part of which is as follows:                                    24 January 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.   There is no need to adjudicate on the present case.
                                                                          The amount of costs recoverable by the applicant in Case T-38/95 is
                                                                          fixed at EUR 106 714,31 (FRF 700 000).
2.   The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 119 of 13.5.1995.
(1) OJ C 146 of 5.6.1991.


title: Case T-39/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — ENI v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Imputability of the offending conduct — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Aggravating circumstances)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/41

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — ENI v Commission
   (Case T-39/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Imputability of the offending conduct - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Aggravating circumstances)
   2011/C 269/90
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ENI SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and V. Bottka, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, so far as ENI SpA is concerned, of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on ENI.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) in so far as it sets the amount of the fine imposed on ENI SpA at EUR 272,25 million;

               2.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on ENI at EUR 181,5 million;

               3.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Action brought on 20 October 1997 by Guérin Automobiles against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-275/97)

text:
10. 1. 98              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 7/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                arguments are essentially the same in both applications,
                                                                   whose purpose, even though they relate to two different
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those           administrative procedures, is to determine whether or not
relied on in Case T-16/97 (1).                                     the Commission is incorrect in not regarding consumers'
                                                                   associations as interested parties in an anti-dumping
                                                                   proceeding concerning products not commonly sold at
(1) OJ C 74, 8. 3. 1997, p. 27.
                                                                   retail level.
Action brought on 19 September 1997 by the European
                                                                   Action brought on 20 October 1997 by GueÂrin
Office of Consumer Unions (BEUC) against the
                                                                   Automobiles against the Commission of the European
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Communities
                        (Case T-256/97)
                                                                                (Case T-275/97)
                           (98/C 7/61)
                                                                                (98/C 7/62)
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
                                                                   Instance on 20 October 1997 by GueÂrin Automobiles,
1997 by the European Office of Consumer Unions
                                                                   represented      by    Xavier     LemeÂe,   court-appointed
(BEUC), represented by Bernard O'Connor, Member of
                                                                   administrator, instructing Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the
the Law Society of Ireland, and assisted by Bonifacio
                                                                   Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Garcia Porras, member of the Colegio de Abogados de
                                                                   the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue BeÂatrix de
Salamanca, of O'Connor and Company, with an address
                                                                   Bourbon.
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of ArseÁne
Kronshagen, 2, rue Marie AdeÂlaïde.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
                                                                   should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul the Commission decision of 25 April 1997,
Ð declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
     EC Treaty, the decision of the Commission, addressed
     to the applicant and set out in the letter of 18 July         Ð formally take note that Mr LemeÂe reserves the right to
     1997 (see Annex I), refusing to regard the applicant as           bring an action for compensation pursuant to
     an interested party' in relation to all aspects of an            Article 215 of the Treaty,
     anti-dumping proceeding, opened by the Commission
     on the 11 July 1997, concerning imports of                    Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
     unbleached cotton fabrics, originating in the People's
     Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan
     and Turkey, and refusing the applicant's request for          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     transmission of the complaint and for access to the
     non-confidential files and information made available         The applicant contests the definitive rejection of the
     by all parties in that proceeding,                            complaint which it lodged against the company Nissan
                                                                   France on the basis of Article 85 of the EC Treaty and
Ð declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the            Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 (1) concerning
     EC Treaty, the decision contained in the same letter, in      the imposition by that company of concession conditions
     so far as that decision refuses to allow the applicant        which the applicant considers incompatible with that
     and other consumer organizations to have access to            Regulation.
     the non-confidential information made available in an
     anti-dumping proceeding dealing with products not             The applicant states that, in its letter rejecting the
     commonly sold at retail level,                                complaint, the defendant relies essentially on the more
                                                                   protective provisions of the new Regulation, Regulation
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                           (EC) No 1475/95 (2), which requires Nissan, in its
                                                                   relations with its concessionaires, to make changes as
                                                                   regards the future both to the contract at issue and in its
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                conduct, eliminating any infringements relating to the
                                                                   past'. The applicant emphasizes in that regard that its
The applicant in the present case is the same                      interest relates only to a situation prior to the entry into
representative consumers' organization as in Case T-84/97          force of that Regulation and that the Commission was
BEUC v. Commission. The pleas in law and main                      asked to deal only with that situation.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/22                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10. 1. 98
In support of the forms of order which it seeks, the                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
applicant relies on the following pleas in law:
                                                                       The applicant contests the definitive rejection of the
Ð breach of essential procedural requirements in that, in              complaint which it lodged against the company Volvo
     the contested decision, the Commission gives no                   France on the basis of Article 85 of the EC Treaty and
     reasons for its failure to take action regarding the              Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 (1) concerning
     infringements ante-dating the entry into force of                 the imposition by that company of concession conditions
     Regulation (EC) No 1475/95, which were reported to                which the applicant considers incompatible with that
     it,                                                               Regulation.
Ð infringement of the Treaty, in that the defendant                    The contentions and principal arguments adduced in
     manifestly erred in its appraisal of the facts,                   support are the same as those in Case T-275/95 GueÂrin
                                                                       Automobiles v. Commission (2).
Ð misuse of powers, in that, in repeating in its analysis
     the arguments put forward by Nissan France, the                   (1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December
                                                                           1984 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to
     defendant's intention was to grant an amnesty. Also,                  certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
     the defendant's attitude runs directly counter to the                 agreements (OJ L 15, 18. 1. 1985, p. 16).
     Community interest as a result of its refusal to ensure           (2) See page 21 of this Official Journal.
     the real effectiveness of Community competition law.
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December
    1984 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to
    certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing
    agreements (OJ L 15, 18. 1. 1985, p. 16).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on           Action brought on 20 October 1997 by Ismeri Europa Srl
    the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain         against the Court of Auditors of the European
    categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing                                       Communities
    agreements (OJ L 145, 29. 6. 1995, p. 25).
                                                                                (Case T-277/97)
                                                                                (98/C 7/64)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 20 October 1997 by GueÂrin                           An action against the Court of Auditors of the European
Automobiles against Commission of the European                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
                           Communities                                 Instance of the European Communities on 20 October
                         (Case T-276/97)                               1997 by Ismeri Europa Srl, represented by Sergio
                                                                       Ristuccia and Gian Luigi Tosato, of the Rome Bar, with
                            (98/C 7/63)
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                       Alex Schmitt, 7, val Ste Croix.
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       (a) declare the Court of Auditors to be liable in damages
Instance on 20 October 1997 by GueÂrin Automobiles,
                                                                             and order it to:
represented       by     Xavier     LemeÂe,      court-appointed
administrator, instructing Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the
Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                      Ð pay an amount which the Court may deem
the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4, rue BeÂatrix de                               appropriate to make good the damage suffered by
Bourbon.                                                                          the applicant in respect of its reputation,
                                                                             Ð pay ECU 943 725 by way of reparation for
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance                             material damage suffered as a result of the
should:                                                                           termination of a number of contracts,
Ð annul the Commission decision of 25 April 1997,                            Ð pay an amount to be determined by way of legal
                                                                                proceedings or which the Court may deem fair
                                                                                and equitable in order to make good loss of
Ð formally take note that Mr LemeÂe reserves the right to                         earnings,
     bring an action for compensation pursuant to
     Article 215 of the Treaty,
                                                                             Ð pay interest at the legal rate taking currency
                                                                                fluctuations into account in respect of each of the
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                                          above heads of claim,


title: Case C-469/07: Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/6

         Action brought on 22 October 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-469/07)
   (2008/C 8/10)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Kraemer, Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to communicate the Community design courts to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 80(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (1);

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not fulfilled the obligation laid down in Article 80(2) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002, under which each Member State is to communicate to the Commission not later than 6 March 2005 a list of Community design courts, indicating their names and their territorial jurisdiction.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1.


title: Case C-45/07: Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/19

         Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-45/07)
   (2007/C 82/35)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson, M. Konstantinidis and F. Hoffmeister)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by submitting to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on 18 March 2005 a proposal for ‘Monitoring the compliance of ships and port facilities with the requirements of Chapter XI-2 of SOLAS and the ISPS Code’, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 10, 71 and 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to the Commission, the submission by the Hellenic Republic to the International Maritime Organisation of a proposal in respect of a matter covered by Regulation (EC) No 725/2004 (1) on enhancing ship and port facility security, without being authorised so to do by the Community, constitutes a breach of its obligations under Articles 10, 71 and 80(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
   The Commission submits that, since the adoption of Regulation No 725/2004, the Community has had exclusive competence with regard to entering into international obligations in the field of maritime security. Consequently, the Member States no longer have the power to present national views to the International Maritime Organisation on matters which fall within exclusive Community competence, unless they receive such authorisation from the Community.

      (1)  OJ L 129, 29.4.2004, p. 6.


title: Case T-427/05: Action brought on  29 November 2005  — Vienne and Others v Parliament

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/24

         Action brought on 29 November 2005 — Vienne and Others v Parliament
   (Case T-427/05)
   (2006/C 22/42)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Philippe Vienne (Bascharage, Luxembourg) and Others (represented by: G. Bounéou, F. Frabetti, lawyers)

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

               —

               annul the implied decision refusing assistance under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay collective compensation for the damage suffered by the applicants as a result;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are in a situation analogous to that of the applicants in Case T-359/05 and invoke, in support of their application, the same pleas and arguments invoked by the applicants in that case.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 16 December 1998 in Case C-374/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Florian Vorderbrüggen v. Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Additional levy on milk - Special reference quantity - Definitive grant - Conditions)

text:
20.2.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 48/3
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before               The Combined Nomenclature, as laid down in Annex I to
that court between Georg Bruner, trading as Georg                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/92 of 14 July
Bruner' and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas Ð on the                      1992 amending Annexes I and II to Council Regulation
interpretation     of    Commission       Regulation    (EEC)        (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical
No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an                       nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff is to be
agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds (OJ             interpreted as meaning that products such as Taxofit
L 366, 24.12.1981, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber),                Vitamin C + Ca Brausetabletten and Taxofit Vitamin C
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of             Kautabletten are to be classified under heading No 3004.
the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C.
Gulmann, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 10 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
Poultry cuts made up of two hind quarters of a fowl still
attached to one another by the skin of the back constitute
quarters' (code 0207 41 11 000) within the meaning of
the nomenclature of agricultural products for export                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
refunds established by Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987.                                                            (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1998
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                                                                     in Case C-374/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Florian Vorderbrüggen v.
                                                                                Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (1)
                                                                     (Additional levy on milk Ð Special reference quantity Ð
                                                                                Definitive grant Ð Conditions)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          (1999/C 48/06)
                       (First Chamber)
                    of 10 December 1998                                             (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-328/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Glob-Sped AG v. Hauptzollamt
                          Lörrach (1)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Combined Nomenclature Ð Headings Nos 3004 and                                published in the European Court Reports)
           2106 Ð Vitamin C-based preparations)
                        (1999/C 48/05)
                                                                     In Case C-374/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf for a
               (Language of the case: German)                        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Florian Vorderbrüggen and Hauptzollamt
                                                                     Bielefeld Ð on the validity of Article 3(a)(3) of
                                                                     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 of 3 June
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of the
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     additional levy referred to in Article 5(c) of Regulation
                                                                     (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ L 139, 4.6.1988, p. 12), as
In Case C-328/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89 (OJ L 110,
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for              21.4.1989, p. 27) Ð the Court (Second Chamber),
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before               composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of
that court between Glob-Sped AG and Hauptzollamt                     Chamber, G. F. Mancini and R. Schintgen, Judges; P.
Lörrach Ð on the interpretation of heading No 3004 of                LeÂger, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/92 of                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
14 July 1992 amending Annexes I and II to Council                    16 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ
L 267, 14.9.1992, p. 1) concerning the classification of             Consideration of the question referred has not revealed
vitamin C-based preparations Ð the Court (First                      any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the                     first subparagraph of Article 3(a)(3) of Commission
Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;              Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 of 3 June 1988 laying
N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,            down detailed rules for the application of the additional
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December               levy referred to in Article 5(c) of Regulation (EEC)
1998, in which it has ruled:                                         No 804/68, as added by Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89, in
 ---pagebreak--- C 48/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  20.2.1999
so far as that provision requires milk deliveries actually to                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
be resumed before 29 March 1990.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
( ) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
 1
                                                                                of 17 December 1998
                                                                            in Case C-353/96: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Ireland (1)
                                                                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Ð Public
                                                                     supply contracts Ð Review procedures Ð Definition of
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      contracting authority)
                       (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/08)
                    of 17 December 1998
in Case C-186/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Stefan Demand v. Hauptzollamt
                            Trier (1)                                                 (Language of the case: English)
(Milk Ð Additional levy scheme Ð Additional reference
quantity Ð Temporary withdrawal Ð Conversion into a
definitive reduction Ð Loss of compensation Ð General
          principles of law and fundamental rights)                  In Case C-353/96: Commission of the European
                        (1999/C 48/07)                               Communities (Agent: Richard Wainwright) v. Ireland
                                                                     (Agent: Michael A. Buckley, assisted by Eoghan
                                                                     Fitzsimons and Feargal ÓDubhghaill) Ð application for a
               (Language of the case: German)                        declaration that, by failing to comply with the provisions
                                                                     of Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976
                                                                     coordinating procedures for the award of public supply
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       contracts (OJ L 13, 15.1.1977, p. 1), as amended by
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Directive 88/295/EEC (OJ L 127, 20.5.1988, p. 1), and in
                                                                     particular by failing to publish its invitation to tender for
                                                                     the supply of fertiliser on behalf of Coillte Teoranta (The
In Case C-186/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           Irish Forestry Board Limited) in the Official Journal of the
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany for               European Communities, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before               obligations under the EC Treaty Ð the Court (Fifth
that court between Stefan Demand and Hauptzollamt                    Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Trier Ð on the validity of the first paragraph of Article 3          Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
and Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92              Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber,
of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in               Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
the milk and milk products sector (OJ L 405, 31.12.1992,             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G.                   17 December 1998, in which it:
Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the Second Chamber,
acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. F. Mancini,
H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges;
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl,
                                                                     1. Declares that, since Coillte Teoranta failed to have a
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                          notice of tender for a contract for the supply of
judgment on 17 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                          fertiliser published in the Official Journal of the
                                                                          European Communities, Ireland has failed to fulfil its
Consideration of the general principles of Community law,                 obligations under Council Directive 77/62/EEC of
and in particular the principles of the protection of                     21 December 1976 coordinating procedures for the
legitimate expectations and of the fundamental right to                   award of public supply contracts, as amended by
property, has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to                    Directive 88/295/EEC.
affect the validity of the first paragraph of Article 3 and
Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of
28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the
milk and milk products sector in so far as they converted,           2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
without compensation, temporary suspension of a
percentage of the additional reference quantity granted in
return for payment into a definitive reduction.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
(1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 October 1995 in Case C-85/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep): Groupement des Producteurs, Importateurs et Agents Généraux d'Eaux Minérales Etrangères, VZW (Piageme) v. Peeters NV (Consumer protection - Labelling of mineral waters - Language)

text:
25 . 11 . 95          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 315/ 1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       use of a language easily understood by purchasers, from
                       ( Fifth Chamber )                                  requiring the use ofa language which is that most widely
                                                                          spoken in the area in which the product is offered for
                     of 12 October 1995
                                                                          sale, even ifthe use at the same time ofanother language
in Case C-85 /94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the            is not excluded.
Hof van Beroep ): Groupement des Producteurs,
Importateurs et Agents Généraux d'Eaux Minérales                     2 . All the compulsory particulars specified in Directive
        Etrangères , VZW ( Piageme ) v. Peeters NV (')                    79/1 12/EEC must appear on the labelling in a language
(Consumer protection — Labelling of mineral waters —                      easily understood by consumers in the State or region
                           Language)                                      concerned or by means of other measures such as
                         (9 SIC 315/01 )                                  designs, symbols or pictograms. The ease with which the
                                                                          information supplied can be understood must be
                                                                          assessed in the light of all the circumstances in each
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                             individual case .
                                                                     (') O J No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
(Provisional translation : the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-85/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty by the Hof van Beroep , Brussels, for a                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Groupement des Producteurs , Importateurs                                       ( Fifth Chamber )
et Agents Généraux d'Eaux Minérales Etrangeres, VZW                                         of 12 October 1995
( Piageme ) and Peeters NV on the interpretation of
Articles 30 , 128 and 129a of the EC Treaty and Article 14 of
                                                                     in Case C-104/94 : ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
Council Directive 79/ 1 12/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the
                                                                     the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Ravenna ) : Cereol Italia Sri v.
                                                                                Azienda Agricola Castello Sas (')
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for        (System ofaid for soya production — Penalty for inaccurate
sale to the ultimate consumer ( OJ 1979 L 33 , p. 1 ) — the                      information in the cultivation contract)
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward                                           ( 95/C 315/02 )
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida , C. Gulmann, P. Jann and L. Sevón , Judges; G.                               (Language of the case: Italian)
Cosmas, Advocate-General ; H. A. Rühl , Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
12 October 1995 , in which it ruled :                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
1 . Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of                    In Case C-104/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
     ? 8 December 7 978 on the approximation of the laws of          of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Ravenna
     the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation       ( Civil and Criminal Court, Ravenna ) for a preliminary
     and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate          ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
     consumer precludes a Member State, with regard to the           Cereol Italia Sri and Azienda Agricola Castello Sas — on the


title: Case C-448/99: Action brought on 25 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
5.2.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 34/15
Action brought on 24 November 1999 by the Com-                             Action brought on 25 November 1999 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the Italian                    mission of the European Communities against the Grand
                             Republic                                                             Duchy of Luxembourg
                         (Case C-447/99)                                                             (Case C-448/99)
                          (2000/C 34/28)
                                                                                (2000/C 34/29)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 Novem-                  An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
ber 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
represented by Frank Benyon and Stefania Dragone, of its                   ties on 25 November 1999 by the Commission of the Euro-
Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in            pean Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its               Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                   Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                           Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The Commission claims that the Court should:
1. Declare that, by maintaining in force the provisions of
     Article 3 of the Ministerial Decree of 13 August 1998,                1. Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
     which brings into force Law No 537 of 24 December                          regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     1993, as amended by Law No 662 of 23 December 1996,                        comply with Articles 8(3) and 9(2) of Directive 97/13/EC
     which provide for differentiated airport taxes according to                of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April
     whether the flight is domestic or to another Member State,                 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations
     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under            and individual licences in the field of telecommunications
     Article 59 of the EC Treaty and Article 3(1) of Regulation                 services (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
     (EEC) No 2408/92 (1);                                                      fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                            2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The Commission submits that the distinction made by the                    The two complaints which are the subject of this application
Italian legislation between flights between Italy and other                relate to the individual licences mentioned in Section III of
Member States and domestic Italian flights, resulting in                   Directive 97/13/EC.
different airport taxes, is incompatible with the principle of
freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 59 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 62                — By failing to publish, as provided for by Article 7(2)(e) of
of the EC Treaty (repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) and                      the Law of 21 March 1997 on telecommunications, the
the provisions of Regulation No 2408/92 as well as with the                     conditions specified for the establishment and operation
right to move freely within the territory of the Member States                  of a radio paging service, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
conferred on the citizens of the Union by Article 8a of the EC                  has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 8(3) of the
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 18 EC).                                   directive;
In the Commission’s view, the differentiation of the airport tax           — By failing to provide that an applicant must be informed,
measure offers the certain prospect of a specific advantage to                  within a period of six weeks, of the decision taken on his
the Italian home market and to national air carriers.                           licence application, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 9(2) of the
                                                                                directive.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on
    access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes
    (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 1).                                                 (1) OJ L 117 of 17.5.1997, p. 15.


title: Case C-97/00: Action brought on 13 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 176/6                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                         24.6.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Action brought on 13 March 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the French Republic
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC is such
                                                                                (Case C-97/00)
as to oblige Member States to which directives are addressed
to adopt the measures necessary in order to transpose those
directives into their national legal order within the time-limit                                 (2000/C 176/11)
prescribed therein. The time-limit fixed in the present case
expired on 4 December 1998 but the Kingdom of the Nether-
lands has not adopted the necessary measures.                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice on 13 March 2000 by the Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities, represented by Michel Nolin, of its
(1) OJ 1997 L 333, p. 1.
                                                                       Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
                                                                       Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 8 March 2000 by the Commission of                    — declare that, by failing to communicate the laws, regu-
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the                         lations and administrative measures necessary in order to
                             Netherlands                                    comply fully with the provisions of European Parliament
                                                                            and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 (1)
                           (Case C-91/00)                                   amending Directives 92/50/EEC (2), 93/36/EEC (3) and
                                                                            93/37/EEC (4), alternatively, by failing to take the necessary
                                                                            measures to comply therewith, the French Republic has
                          (2000/C 176/10)                                   failed to comply with its obligations under that directive;
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                   — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
brought before the Court of Justice on 8 March 2000 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by
H.M.H. Speyart, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                       advanced in Case C-90/00 (5); the period prescribed by Article
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and          4(1) of the directive expired on 13 October 1998, yet the only
     administrative provisions necessary in order to comply            provisions of Directive 97/52/EC which have been transposed
     with Commission Directive 98/77/EC (1) of 2 October               into the French legal order are those contained in Articles
     1998 adapting to technical progress Council Directive             1(1)(a), 2(1)(a) and 3(1)(a), relating to the thresholds above
     70/220/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the                which notices of contracts must be published in the Official
     Member States relating to measures to be taken against air        Journal of the European Communities.
     pollution by emissions from motor vehicles, the Kingdom
     of the Netherlands has failed to comply with its obligations
     under that directive;
                                                                       (1) concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public
— order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.                   service contracts, public supply contracts and public works
                                                                           contracts respectively (OJ L 328 of 28.11.1997, p. 1).
                                                                       (2) Council Directive of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209 of
                                                                           24.7.1992, p. 1).
                                                                       (3) Council Directive of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those                 the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 1).
in Case C-90/00 (2); the time-limit for transposition expired on       (4) Council Directive of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination
31 December 1998.                                                          of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ L 199
                                                                           of 9.8.1993, p. 54).
                                                                        5
                                                                       ( ) See page 5 of this Official Journal.
(1) OJ 1998 L 286, p. 34.
(2) See page 5 of this Official Journal.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 6 February 2003 in Case C-92/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Dioikitiko Protodikeio Irakleiou): Georgios Stylianakis v Elliniko Dimosio (Article 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 18 EC) — European citizenship — Article 59 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — Freedom to provide services — Community air transport — Airport tax — Discrimination — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92)

text:
5.4.2003                   EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 83/3
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                                             (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 13 February 2003                                                         of 6 February 2003
in Case C-75/01: Commission of the European Communi-                          in Case C-92/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
              ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1)                           from the Monomeles Dioikitiko Protodikeio Irakleiou):
                                                                                Georgios Stylianakis v Elliniko Dimosio (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats —                      (Article 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article
                          Wild fauna and flora)                               18 EC) — European citizenship — Article 59 of the Treaty
                                                                              (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — Freedom to
                                                                              provide services — Community air transport — Airport tax
                             (2003/C 83/04)                                        — Discrimination — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92)
                       (Language of the case: French)                                                    (2003/C 83/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                            (Language of the case: Greek)
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-75/01: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: B. Wainwright and J. Adda) against Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg (Agent: J. Faltz) — application for a declaration
that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to implement              In Case C-92/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
fully and correctly Articles 1, 4(5), 5(4), 6, 7, 12(1)(b) and (c),           by the Monomeles Diikitiko Protodikio Irakliou (Greece) for a
12(2), 12(4), 13(1)(b) and 13(2), 14, 15, 16(1), 22(b) and (c),               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
and 23(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on                    court between Georgios Stylianakis and Elliniko Dimosio, on
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and                    the interpretation of Articles 8a and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,
flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) in conjunction with annexes I, II,                after amendment, Articles 18 and 49 EC) and Article 3(1) of
IV, V and VI of that directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive and under            access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC — the Court of Justice                  routes (OJ 1992 L 240, p. 8), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
(Sixth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the               composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, and C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris.                          Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha
F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                       Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 13 February                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 February 2003, in which
2003, in which it:                                                            it has ruled:
1.    Declared that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to         Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July
                                                                              1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air
      implement fully and correctly Articles 1, 4(5), 5(4), 6, 7,
                                                                              routes precludes a measure adopted by a Member State, such as that
      12(1)(b) and (c), 12(2), 12(4), 13(1)(b), 14, 15, 16(1),
                                                                              at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes on, for the most
      22(b), and 23(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May
                                                                              part, flights to other Member States higher airport tax than that
      1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
      and flora in conjunction with annexes I, II, IV, V and VI of            applicable to domestic flights within that Member State unless it is
                                                                              shown that those taxes compensate airport services necessary for the
      that directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to
                                                                              processing of passengers and that the cost of those services provided
      fulfil its obligations under the directive;
                                                                              to passengers flying to other Member States is proportionately higher
                                                                              than the cost of those services necessary for the processing of
2.    Ordered Luxembourg to pay the costs.                                    passengers on domestic flights.
( 1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                   (1 ) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.


title: Case C-111/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin lodged on 24 February 2006 — Irene Werich v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin lodged on 24 February 2006 — Irene Werich v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
   (Case C-111/06)
   (2006/C 326/48)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Sozialgericht Berlin
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Irene Werich

      Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
   Question referred
   Is the provision in point (1) of Annex VI. D. (formerly C.) Germany to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (Regulation No 1408/71) compatible with higher-ranking European law, in particular the principle of freedom of movement and the principle of the exportability of benefits under Article 42 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty), inasmuch as it also rules out pension benefits in respect of contribution periods for which compulsory contributions were paid under the insurance legislation of the German Reich?

      (1)  OJ English Special Edition, Series I Chapter 1971(II) p. 416.


title: Case C-306/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln, Germany) — 01051 Telecom GmbH v Deutsche Telekom AG (Directive 2000/35/EC — Combating of late payment in commercial transactions — Article 3(1)(c)(ii) — Late payment — Bank transfer — Date on which payment is to be regarded as having been made)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln, Germany) — 01051 Telecom GmbH v Deutsche Telekom AG
   (Case C-306/06) (1)

   (Directive 2000/35/EC - Combating of late payment in commercial transactions - Article 3(1)(c)(ii) - Late payment - Bank transfer - Date on which payment is to be regarded as having been made)
   (2008/C 128/10)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: 01051 Telecom GmbH

      Defendant: Deutsche Telekom AG
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Köln — Interpretation of Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35) — Whether a creditor may claim default interest — ‘Receipt’ by the creditor of the amount due — National rule under which the time of payment is considered to be the time when the debtor gives the transfer order to the bank and not the time when the creditor's account is credited
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 3(1)(c)(ii) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions is to be interpreted as meaning that it requires, in order that a payment by bank transfer may avoid or put an end to the application of interest for late payment, that the sum due be credited to the account of the creditor within the period for payment.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 April 2000 in Case C-256/98: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora)

text:
C 192/2                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           8.7.2000
the proceedings being: Solvay SA, established in Brussels,                 as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of
Belgium, represented by L. Simont, Advocate at the Belgian                 20 July 1993 (OJ 1993 L 193, p. 20) — the Court (Sixth
Court of Cassation, by P.-A. Foriers and G. Block, of the                  Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), acting as
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the             President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm,
Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe — the Court                      Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; D. Louterman-
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President            Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
of the First Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth                judgment on 6 April 2000, in which it:
Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wa-
thelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,                 1. Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
6 April 2000, in which it:                                                 2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;
1. Dismisses the appeals;                                                  3. Orders the Italian Republic and the Portuguese Republic to bear
                                                                               their own costs.
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the
     costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.
(1) OJ C 286 of 28.10.1995.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                               (Fifth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                                             of 6 April 2000
                          of 6 April 2000                                  in Case C-256/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-443/97: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats
                                                                                and of wild fauna and flora)
(Coordination of structural instruments — Internal Com-
        mission guidelines — Net financial corrections)
                                                                                (2000/C 192/04)
                          (2000/C 192/03)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-256/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agents: P. Stancanelli and O. Couvert-Castéra) v French
In Case C-443/97: Kingdom of Spain, represented by R. Silva                Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and R. Nadal) — appli-
de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an                  cation for a declaration that, by not adopting all the laws,
address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy,                  regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply
4-6 Boulevard E. Servais, supported by Italian Republic (Agent:            with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
U. Leanza, assisted by G. De Bellis), and Portuguese Republic,             conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
(Agents: L. Fernandes and J. Viegas Ribeiro) v Commission                  (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), in that it has omitted to take the
of the European Communities (Agents: M. Dı́az-Llanos and                   measures necessary to comply with Article 6 thereof, the
P. Oliver) — application for the annulment of the Com-                     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
mission’s internal guidelines of 15 October 1997 concerning                Directive and under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the
net financial corrections in the context of the application                EC Treaty (now the third paragraph of Article 249 EC) — the
of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of                    Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President
19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing                   of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rap-
Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the                 porteur), J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly,
activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves            Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Administrator, for
and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April 2000, in which
the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1),            it:
 ---pagebreak--- 8.7.2000                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 192/3
1. Declares that, by not adopting within the period prescribed all           1. Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of
     the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to              22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit the release
     comply with Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive                       for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive
     92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural                     procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods is to be interpreted as
     habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the French Republic has               being applicable where goods of the type specified in Regulation
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                      No 3295/94, imported from a non-member country, are, in the
                                                                                course of their transit to another non-member country, tempor-
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                        arily detained in a Member State by the customs authorities of
                                                                                that State on the basis of that regulation and at the request of
3. Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.                             the company which holds rights in respect of those goods which
                                                                                it claims have been infringed and whose registered office is in a
                                                                                non-member country.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                             2. Consideration of the questions raised has revealed no factor of
                                                                                such a kind as to affect the validity of Regulation No 3295/94.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              (First Chamber)                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              of 6 April 2000                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 April 2000
in Case C-383/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): The Polo/Lauren Company LP                        in Case C-176/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
v PT. Dwidua Langgeng Pratama International Freight                          the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Jyri
                               Forwarders (1)                                Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v
                                                                             Fédération Royale Belge des Sociétés de Basket-ball ASBL
(Common commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 3295/94                                                     (FRBSB) (1)
— Prohibition of the release for free circulation, export, re-
export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and                (Freedom of movement for workers — Competition rules
pirated goods — Whether applicable to goods in external                      applicable to undertakings — Professional basketball players
                            transit — Validity)                              — Sporting rules on the transfer of players from other
                                                                                Member States)
                             (2000/C 192/05)                                                            (2000/C 192/06)
                      (Language of the case: German)                                              (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-176/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-383/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberster                         Première Instance (Court of First Instance), Brussels, for a
Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, for a preliminary ruling               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
in the proceedings pending before that court between The                     court between Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-
Polo/Lauren Company LP and PT. Dwidua Langgeng Pratama                       Braine ASBL and Fédération Royale Belge des Sociétés de
International Freight Forwarders — on the interpretation of                  Basket-ball ASBL (FRBSB), intervener: Ligue Belge — Belgische
Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994                       Liga ASBL — on the interpretation of Articles 6, 48 of the EC
laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circu-                 Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 39 EC), 85
lation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of             and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC)
counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ 1994 L 341, p. 8) — the                    — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,
Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the              President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the
Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;                       Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Princi-                 Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000, in
6 April 2000, in which it has ruled:                                         which it has ruled:


C 161/26              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.6.2001
      Removal from the Register of Case T-350/99 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-150/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/51)                                                           (2001/C 161/54)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          By order of 13 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
By order of 6 March 2001, the President of the First Chamber
                                                                          Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance of the
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          European Communities has ordered the removal from the
has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-350/99,
                                                                          Register of Case T-150/00, Groupement Européen des Produc-
Bogoljub Karic and Others v Council of the European Union.
                                                                          teurs de Verre Plat (GEPV) v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-29/00 (1)
                                                                                Removal from the Register of Case T-168/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/52)                                                           (2001/C 161/55)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                            (Language of the case: German)
By order of 15 February 2001, the President of the First                  By order of 7 March 2001, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of                  Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Case T-29/00, Deutsche Post AG v Commission of the                        Case T-168/00, Düsseldorfer Senfspezialitäten v Office for
European Communities.                                                     Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                          Designs).
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
       Removal from the Register of Case T-91/00 (1)                            Removal from the Register of Case T-189/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 161/53)                                                           (2001/C 161/56)
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                                          (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          By order of 22 February 2001, the President of the Second
By order of 15 February 2001, the President of the Second
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                          Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of
                                                                          Case T-189/00, ‘Invest’ Import und Export Gmbh et Invest
Case T-91/00, Adolfo Kind v Commission of the European
                                                                          Commerce SARL v Commission of the European Communi-
Communities.
                                                                          ties.
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.                                                (1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.