title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State, Belgium, by judgment of that court of 18 December 1996 in the case of NV Ballast Nedam Group v. Belgian State (Case C-5/97)

text:
 No C 74/ 14           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    8 . 3 . 97
     employment for the duration of the employment as                   paragraph 19 (2 ) of the Bundessozialhilfegesetz ( Federal
     freely determined between the employer and the                      Law on Social Assistance )) to a limited group of persons ?
     employee ( i.e. length of employment) and the benefits
     arising from such security, such as a career structure
     providing the possibility of promotion, vocational
     training and pay and retirement pensions
     commensurate to the seniority of the applicant,
     applying mutatis mutandis the reasoning used by the                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,
     European Court of Justice in inter alia Case C-272/92              Criminal Division, by order of that court of 24 December
     Spotti v. Freistaat Bayern [ 1994] 3 CMLR 29, [ 1993 ]
                                                                         1996, in the case of Regina against John Charles Goodwin
     ECR 1-5185 and Case 225/85 Commission v. Italy                                        and Edward Thomas Unstead
     [ 1987] ECR 2625 ?
                                                                                (Case C-3/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/28 )
 2 . If so, does the fact that the length of the applicant's
     employment is subject to a de facto time limit by the
     operation of the United Kingdom immigration laws                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     and in the instant case is being terminated by the                 European Communities by an order of the Court of
     respondent's decision not to extend the applicant's                Appeal, Criminal Division, of 24 December 1996, which
     leave to remain in the United Kingdom constitute                   was received at the Court Registry on 9 January 1997, for
     discrimination in relation to such 'working conditions'            a preliminary ruling in the case of Regina against John
     on grounds of nationality where the respondent could               Charles Goodwin and Edward Thomas Unstead, on the
     not impose such a de facto time limit and/or forced                following question :
     termination of employment upon its own nationals ?
                                                                        Does the supply of counterfeit perfume products fall
3 . If the answer to questions 1 and 2 is in the                        within the scope of Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
     affirmative, does Article 40 of the EC/Morocco                     17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
     Cooperation Agreement require the Member State to                  Member States relating to turnover taxes (the sixth
     grant the Moroccan worker leave to remain for the                  Directive ) ( 1 )?
     duration of his lawful employment ?
                                                                        (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
Reference      for    a       preliminary     ruling    by    the       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van
Verwaltungsgericht der Freien Hansestadt Bremen by                      State, Belgium, by judgment of that court of 18 December
order    of  that   court     of   9   December    1996   in  the
                                                                        1996 in the case of NV Ballast Nedam Group v. Belgian
administrative proceedings between Mehmet Birden and                                                      State
                    Stadtgemeinde Bremen
                                                                                ( Case C-5/97 )
                         ( Case C-l /97 )
                                                                                97/C 74/29
                           ( 97/C 74/27 )
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice                        European Communities by a judgment of the Raad van
of the European Communities by order of the                            Staate ( Council of State ) of 18 December 1997, which was
Verwaltungsgericht der Freien Hansestadt Bremen                        received at the Court Registry on 13 January 1997, for a
( Administrative Court of the Free Hanseatic City of                   preliminary ruling in the case of Ballast Nedam Group v.
Bremen ) of 9 December 1996, received at the Court                     Belgian State
Registry on 6 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Mehmet Birden v. Stadtgemeinde Bremen ( City               on the following questions :
of Bremen ) on the following question:
                                                                        1 . May the word 'permit' in the phrase 'permit [. . .]
Is a Turkish worker a duly registered member of the                         account to be taken of [...]' in the operative part of
labour force of a Member State, within the meaning of                       the judgment in Case C-389/92 (') be taken to mean
Article 6 ( 1 ) of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey                       'require'?
Association     Council       on    the   development    of   the
Association, if he has a job sponsored by that Member                  2. If the word 'permit' in the above phrase cannot be
State with public funds and requiring payment of social                     taken to mean 'require ', does that mean that the
security contributions which is meant to enable him to                      Member State concerned in this regard enjoys a
enter or re-enter working life and which, owing to the                      discretionary power, even where the condition laid
State sponsorship, may only be offered (pursuant to                         down by the Court is satisfied ?
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 3 . 97             EN ]                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 74/ 15
3 . If so, in which cases and on what grounds must                         with the publisher of a competing product dependent
      account be taken of the companies belonging to the                   upon the latter instructing him not only with home
      dominant legal person of a group of companies ?                      deliveries but also with other services ( e.g. marketing
                                                                           through sales points, printing ) within the context of an
(') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994, p . 4 .                                   overall package ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Oberlandesgericht, Vienna, by order of that Court of                   Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta by order of that
1 July 1996 in the competition case of Oscar Bronner                   tribunal of 9 January 1997 in the proceedings brought by
GmbH & Co. KG against 1 . Mediaprint Zeitungs- und                                               Raija-Liisa Jokela
Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG; 2 . Mediaprint Zei                                            ( Case C-9/97 )
tungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG; 3 . Mediaprint
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/31 )
             Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
                           ( Case C-7/97 )
                             ( 97/C 74/30 )                            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                       the European Communities by an order of the
                                                                       Maaseutuelinkeinojen Valituslautakunta ( Rural Industries
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Appeals Board ) of 9 January 1997, which was received at
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht                 the Court Registry on 16 January 1997, for a preliminary
(Higher Regional Court — acting as a competition court),               ruling in the proceedings brought by Raija-Liisa Jokela on
Vienna, of 1 July 1996, received at the Court Registry on              the following questions:
15 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
competition case between the applicant, Oscar Brunner                  1 . Is it compatible with the aims of Articles 17 and 18 of
GmbH & Co . KG, and the defendants, 1 . Mediaprint                         Council Regulation (EEC ) No 2328/91 on improving
Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenverlag GmbH & Co. KG;                           the efficiency of agricultural structures 0 ) and Article 1
2 . Mediaprint Zeitungsvertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co .                    of Council Directive 75/268/EEC on mountain and hill
KG; 3 . Mediaprint Anzeigengesellschaft mbH & Co. KG,                      farming and farming in certain less-favoured areas ( 2 )
on the following questions:                                                for a compensatory allowance for natural handicaps to
                                                                           be granted to a farmer, if he does not live on a farm
1 . Is Article 86 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted in such               owned or controlled by him in Finland in a less
      a way that there is an abuse of a dominant position, in              favoured area within the meaning of the said
      the sense of an abusive barring of access to the                     Directive, but lives for most of the year outside the
                                                                           said area ?
      market, where an undertaking which carries on the
      publication, production and marketing of daily
      newspapers, and with its products occupies a                         If the answer to the above question is affirmative, even
      predominant position on the Austrian market for daily                partly or conditionally:
      newspapers ( 46,8 % of total circulation, 42 % of
      advertising revenue and 71 % range of influence,                      ( a ) is it permissible, having regard to the said
      measured by the number of all daily newspapers ), and                       provisions and the principles of Article 5 , the
      operates the only intra-regional home-delivery                              second subparagraph of Article 40 ( 3 ), and indent
      distribution service for subscribers, refuses to make a                     ( a ) of the second paragraph of Article 42 of the
      binding offer to another undertaking engaged in the                         Treaty of Rome, and in particular to the principle
      publication, production and marketing of a daily                            of equal treatment of farmers and the associated
      newspaper in Austria to include that daily newspaper                        prohibition of discrimination set out there, to
      in its home-delivery scheme, in the light also of the                       require, in order to obtain the compensation for
      circumstance that it is not possible, on account of the                     natural handicaps referred to in paragraph 6 of the
      small circulation and the consequently small number                         decision of the national Council of State ( 861 /
      of subscribers, for the undertaking seeking inclusion in                    1995 ) in the case of a farmer living outside the
      the home-delivery scheme to build up its own home                          farm and more than 12 kilometres distant by road
      delivery scheme for a reasonable outlay and operate it                      from the operational centre of the farm, that the
      profitably, either alone or in cooperation with the                         farmer both receives at least half his total income
      other undertakings offering daily newspapers on the                         from agriculture, horticulture and forestry and
      market ?                                                                    other activities carried on on the farm and also
                                                                                carries on farming on the farm himself; and
2 . Does it amount to an abuse within the meaning of
      Article 86 of the EC Treaty, where, under the                         ( b ) is it consistent in particular with the principle of
      circumstances described in question 1 above, the                            legal certainty to be observed in the Community
      operator of the home-delivery scheme for daily                              legal order always also to require that a special
      newspapers makes the entry into business relations                          reason should exist ?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 May 2003 in Case C-266/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Préservatrice foncière TIARD SA v Staat der Nederlanden (Brussels Convention — Article 1 — Scope — Concept of "civil and commercial matters" — Concept of "customs matters" — Action based on a guarantee contract between the State and an insurance company — Contract entered into in order to satisfy a condition imposed by the State on associations of carriers, principal debtors, under Article 6 of the TIR Convention)

text:
C 158/6                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                5.7.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            to enable a third person to supply a guarantee required and
                                                                                defined by that State, in so far as the legal relationship between
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                         the creditor and the guarantor, under the guarantee contract,
                                                                                does not entail the exercise by the State of powers going beyond
                           of 15 May 2003                                          those existing under the rules applicable to relations between
                                                                                private individuals;
in Case C-266/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             —     ‘customs matters’, within the meaning of the second sentence of
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Préservatrice foncière
                                                                                that provision, does not cover a claim by which a contracting
              TIARD SA v Staat der Nederlanden ( 1)
                                                                                State seeks to enforce a guarantee contract intended to guarantee
                                                                                the payment of a customs debt, where the legal relationship
(Brussels Convention — Article 1 — Scope — Concept of                              between the State and the guarantor, under that contract, does
‘civil and commercial matters’ — Concept of ‘customs                               not entail the exercise by the State of powers going beyond
matters’ — Action based on a guarantee contract between                            those existing under the rules applicable to relations between
the State and an insurance company — Contract entered                              private individuals, even if the guarantor may raise pleas in
into in order to satisfy a condition imposed by the State on                       defence which necessitate an investigation into the existence and
associations of carriers, principal debtors, under Article 6 of                    content of the customs debt.
                        the TIR Convention)
                           (2003/C 158/08)                                   (1 ) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-266/01: Reference to the Court under the Protocol
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                                                of 15 May 2003
by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    in Case C-300/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
court between Préservatrice foncière TIARD SA and Staat                            the Landesgericht Feldkirch): Doris Salzmann ( 1)
der Nederlanden, on the interpretation of Article 1 of the
abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1972                      (Free movement of capital — Article 73b of the EC Treaty
L 299, p. 32), as amended by the Convention of 9 October
                                                                             (now Article 56 EC) — Prior authorisation procedure for the
1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland                     acquisition of building plots — Purely internal situation —
and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland                 Article 70 of the Act of Accession of the Republic of
(OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and — amended text — p. 77), by the
                                                                             Austria — Concept of ‘existing legislation’ — Point 1(e) of
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the                                        Annex XII to the EEA Agreement)
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1) and by the Convention
of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain
and the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1), the Court                                            (2003/C 158/09)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur)                                      (Language of the case: German)
and A. Rosas, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Principal Administrator, Registrar, has given a judgment on                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
15 May 2003, in which it has ruled:                                                              in the European Court Reports)
The first paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention of 27 September
1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October                In Case C-300/01, reference to the Court under Article 234
1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the             EC by the Landesgericht Feldkirch (Austria) for a preliminary
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the                 ruling in the land registration case brought before that court
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic               by Doris Salzmann — on the interpretation of Article 73b of
Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession               the EC Treaty (now Article 56 EC) and of point 1(e) of
of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, must be                 Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area
interpreted as follows:                                                      of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3) — the Court (Sixth
                                                                             Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Presi-
—     ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of the first        dent of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and
      sentence of that provision, covers a claim by which a contracting      J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-
      State seeks to enforce against a person governed by private law        F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
      a private-law guarantee contract which was concluded in order          a judgment on 15 May 2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Action brought on 25 November 1996 by C. A. S. Succhi di Frutta SpA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-191/96)

text:
22 . 3 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 94/ 15
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 25 November 1996 by C. A. S. Succhi               administrative proceedings taken against that AIMA
di Frutta SpA against the Commission of the European                circular, the applicant obtained two notes sent by the
                         Communities                                defendant to AIMA in connection with the award of
                      ( Case T-191 /96 )
                                                                    contract to the two pre-selected undertakings . The note
                                                                    concerning the Italian successful tenderer in fact provided
                         ( 97/C 94/35 )                             for the possibility of replacement of the fruit indicated in
                                                                    the notice of tender by another kind of fruit. According to
                                                                    the applicant, that possibility had already been
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     acknowledged by decision of 14 June 1996, subsequently
                                                                    amended by the contested decision, which altered the
                                                                    replacement coefficient, but to a very limited extent and
                                                                    without retroactive effect, at a time when the period for
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    withdrawal of the peaches was coming to an end .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance on 25 November 1996 by C. A. S. Succhi di Frut
ta SpA, represented by Alberto Miele, of the Padua Bar,
Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele Roberti, both of the               The applicant states that:
Naples Bar, and Dr Proc . Carlo Scarpa, of the Venice Bar,
with an address for service in Brussels at 36 Place du
Grand Sablon .                                                      — the Commission, only a few days before the expiry of
                                                                            the period for the submission of tenders, had already
                                                                            changed one of the essential aspects thereof,
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
should :
                                                                    — moreover, only one successful tenderer was thereby
                                                                            favoured, by means of a wholly unusual measure, in
                                                                            that it was not adopted in accordance with the
— annul the Commission decision of 6 September 1996
                                                                            procedures laid down for that purpose, even though
     amending the Commission decision of 14 June 1996                       they were followed in relation to subsequent decisions .
     concerning the supply of fruit juice and fruit jam for
     the peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan;
                                                                    According to the applicant, that conduct was all the
                                                                    more unusual since the quantity of peaches offered as
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                           replacement for the apples/oranges was excessive and
                                                                    disproportionate : it took no account of the market values
                                                                    of the products concerned — in other words it disregarded
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 the fact that the market value of peaches was certainly
                                                                    higher than that of apples .
The applicant, an Italian company engaged mainly in the
production from fresh fruit of puree and fruit juices or            In support of its two pleas in law, the applicant alleges
concentrates, objects to the manner in which the                    infringement of the notice of tender, of the principles of
Commission changed the conditions for a tendering                   transparency and equal treatment, and of Regulations
procedure for the supply of fruit juices and jam for the            ( EC ) No 2009/95 (2 ) and ( EC ) No 1975/95 ( 3 ). The
peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan, in that it changed ex            contested decision is also, in its view, vitiated by misuse of
post facto one of the essential points in the notice, namely        powers and manifest error of assessment.
the type of product to be received by the successful
tenderer, on the basis of which interested parties, including
                                                                    ( 1 ) Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 228/96 of 7 February 1996
the applicant, decided whether and on what basis to                       on the supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended for the
tender.
                                                                          peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan ( OJ No L 30, 8 . 2 . 1996 ,
                                                                          p. 18 ).
                                                                    ( 2 ) Regulation ( EC ) No 2009/95 of laying down detailed rules for
The Regulation on which the tendering procedure was                       the free supply of agricultural products held in intervention
based ( ] ) envisaged the possibility of withdrawing from                 stocks to Georgia , Armenia , Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and
                                                                          Tajikistan pursuant to Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1975/95
intervention stocks only two types of product: apples or                  ( OJ No L 196 , 19 . 8 . 1995 , p. 4 ).
oranges . The applicant, whose tender was not successful,           ( 3 ) Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1975/95 of 4 August 1995 on
learned, however, at the time of supply, that there were                  actions for the free supply of agricultural products to the
certain departures from the Community rules. Specifically,                peoples of Georgia, Armenia , Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and
by circular of 21 March 1996 , AIMA, the Italian                          Tajikistan ( OJ No L 191 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p. 2 ).
intervention agency, allowed the Italian successful tenderer
to withdraw fresh products other than those specified in
the notice of tender, in particular peaches. In national


title: Case C-106/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution (FCD), Fédération des magasins de bricolage et de l’aménagement de la maison (FMB) v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment and protection of human health — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) — Articles 7(2) and 33 — Substances of very high concern present in articles — Duties to notify and provide information — Calculation of threshold of 0,1 % weight by weight)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution (FCD), Fédération des magasins de bricolage et de l’aménagement de la maison (FMB) v Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie
   (Case C-106/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment and protection of human health - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH Regulation) - Articles 7(2) and 33 - Substances of very high concern present in articles - Duties to notify and provide information - Calculation of threshold of 0,1 % weight by weight))
   (2015/C 363/14)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Fédération des entreprises du commerce et de la distribution (FCD), Fédération des magasins de bricolage et de l’aménagement de la maison (FMB)

      Defendant: Ministre de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 of 14 April 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of application of that provision, it is for the producer to determine whether a substance of very high concern identified in accordance with Article 59(1) of that regulation, as amended, is present in a concentration above 0,1 % weight by weight of any article it produces and, for the importer of a product made up of more than one article, to determine for each article whether such a substance is present in a concentration above 0,1 % weight by weight of that article.

               2.

               Article 33 of Regulation No 1907/2006, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of application of that provision, it is for the supplier of a product one or more constituent articles of which contain(s) a substance of very high concern identified in accordance with Article 59(1) of that regulation in a concentration above 0,1 % weight by weight of that article, to inform the recipient and, on request, the consumer, of the presence of that substance by providing them, as a minimum, with the name of the substance in question.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Removal from the register of C-1/96 SA

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/ 19
          Removal from the register of C-187/95 (*)                             Removal from the register of C-363/95 0 )
                           ( 97/C 199/39                                                           ( 97/C 199/43 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-187/95 ( Reference for a                   from the register of Case C-363/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Roma,     Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli       ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division)): criminal proceedings            Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Angelo Deodati and Aldo Luchini .                              against Giuseppe Tancredi .
O OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 .
          Removal from the register of C-331/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/40 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 77/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/44 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-331 /95 ( Reference for a                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   from the register of Case C-377/95 ( Reference for a
Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
against Giuseppe Piccolo.                                              Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                                                                       against Tersilio Onorati .
H OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       H OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-332/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/41 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 78/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/45 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-332/95 ( Reference for a                   By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Roma,       Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli        ( Rome District        from the register of Case C-378/95 ( Reference for a
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
against Mario Corbo and Others .                                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                                                                       Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                      against Palma Mariulli .
                                                                        ') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-342/95 H
                            ( 97/C 199/42 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-l/96 SA (')
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                                             ( 97/C 199/46 )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-342/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   By order of 24 April 1997 the President of the Court of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           removal from the register of Case C-l /96 SA: SA Must
against Miranda Viola .                                                Interim v. Commission of the European Communities.
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                        ') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .


title: Case T-287/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  8 September 2005  — Lorte and Others v Council (Action for annulment — Regulations (EC) No 864/2004 and No 865/2004 — Support scheme in the olive oil sector — Natural and legal persons — Not of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/24

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2005 — Lorte and Others v Council
   (Case T-287/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulations (EC) No 864/2004 and No 865/2004 - Support scheme in the olive oil sector - Natural and legal persons - Not of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 296/52)
   Language of the case: Spanish.
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Lorte, SL (Seville, Spain), Oleo Unión, Federación empresarial de organizaciones de productores de aceite de oliva (Seville, Spain), Unión de organizaciones de productores de aceite de oliva (Unaproliva) (Jaén, Spain), (represented by: R. Illescas Ortiz, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón, Agents)
   Application for
   Annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (OJ 2004 L 161, p. 48), and of Council Regulation (EC) No 865/2004 of 29 April 2004 on the common organisation of the market in olive oil and table olives and amending Regulation (EEC) No 827/68 (OJ 2004 L 161, p. 97).
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants must bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Council.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the Commission's application for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004.


title: Case C-319/05: Action brought on 19 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/5

         Action brought on 19 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-319/05)
   (2005/C 257/09)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Bruno Stromsky and Bernhard Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by classifying a garlic preparation in capsule form, which does not fall under the definition of a medicinal product by virtue of its designation, as a medicinal product, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 and 30 EC;

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its action, the Commission challenges the classification by the German authorities of a garlic preparation in capsule form as a medicinal product.
   The Commission takes the view that the product is not a medicinal product. Garlic is a widely available foodstuff. The sale of garlic is not to be restricted on grounds of health protection. The product is not a medicinal product by virtue of its designation, because it is not indicated or recommended for treating or preventing illnesses and, furthermore, it is not typically presented as a medicinal product.
   In addition, it is not a medicinal product by virtue of its function. The mildly preventive effect of garlic against atherosclerosis does not lend the product any medicinal characteristic. In the first place, such an effect can be produced by the consumption of garlic foodstuffs in various forms. Secondly, other foodstuffs, such as for example various types of fish, can guard against atherosclerosis. Thirdly, various foodstuffs which are entirely general in nature reduce the risk of various illnesses (tomatoes, broccoli, cocoa etc). The Commission takes the view that this health-beneficial effect cannot result in such foodstuffs being termed medicinal products.
   Likewise, the risks involved in consuming garlic in certain situations do not justify the product at issue being classified as a medicinal product. Those risks can be dealt with by less restrictive measures.
   The product at issue is therefore not a medicinal product within the meaning of Community law. Therefore the fact that it is classified as a medicinal product in Germany constitutes a barrier to the free movement of goods. It is not clear how that barrier can be justified on the grounds of protection of public health.


title: Case C-499/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie (Poland) lodged on 8 December 2006 — Halina Nerkowska v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie (Poland) lodged on 8 December 2006 — Halina Nerkowska v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych
   (Case C-499/06)
   (2007/C 20/21)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie (Regional Court, Koszalin)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Halina Nerkowska

      Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie
   Question referred
   Does Article 18 EC, which guarantees citizens of the European Union the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, preclude the binding force of the national rules laid down in Article 5 of the Ustawa o zaopatrzeniu inwalidów wojennych i wojskowych oraz ich rodzin (Law on provision for war and military invalids and their families) of 29 May 1974 (Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of Laws) of 2 September 1987, as subsequently amended) in so far as they make payment of a pension benefit for incapacity for work that is linked to a stay in places of isolation subject to fulfilment of the condition that the person entitled be resident in the territory of the Polish State?


title: Case C-253/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 29 May 2007 — Canterbury Hockey Club, Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 29 May 2007 — Canterbury Hockey Club, Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club v Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-253/07)
   (2007/C 183/34)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Canterbury Hockey Club, Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club

      Defendant: Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs
   Questions referred

               1.

               For the purposes of the exemption contained in Article 13 A (1)(m) of the Sixth Directive (1), does the term ‘persons’ in the context of ‘persons taking part in sport’ include corporate persons and unincorporated associations, or is it limited to individuals, in the sense of natural persons or human beings?

               2.

               If the term ‘persons’ in the context of ‘persons taking part in sport’ does include corporate persons and unincorporated associations, as well as individuals, does the expression ‘certain services closely linked to sport’ permit a Member State to limit the exemption only to individuals taking part in sport?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1).


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 July 1998 in Case T-118/96: Thai Bicycle Industry Co. Ltd v Council of the European Union (Dumping - Normal value - Constructed value - Production costs - Selling, general and administrative expenses - Profit margin - OEM adjustment)

text:
C 327/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                24.10.98
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs;                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 September 1998
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   in Case T-94/96: Martin Hagleitner v Commission of the
     Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.                                          European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Open competition Ð Selection board Ð
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.                                                          Examiners Ð Correction of tests)
                                                                                (98/C 327/39)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                    In Case T-94/96: Martin Hagleitner, residing in Vienna,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    represented by Harald Svoboda, of the Vienna Bar, with
                    of 15 September 1998                            an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                    Maître Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, against
in Case T-54/96: Oleifici Italiani SpA and Fratelli Rubino          Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Julian
Industrie Olearie SpA v Commission of the European                  Currall and Bertrand Wägenbaur) Ð application for
                       Communities (1)                              annulment of the measures adopted by the Commission in
(Agriculture Ð Financing of intervention measures Ð                 the context of Competition COM/A/904 or, at the very
Suspension of all payment due for storage of a                      least, the decision of the Selection Board in that
consignment of olive oil pending verification of its                competition not to admit the applicant to the oral tests Ð
 characteristics Ð Action for annulment and for damages)            the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed
                                                                    of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J.
                        (98/C 327/38)                               Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for
                                                                    the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September 1998
                                                                    in which it:
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    1. Annuls the decision of the Commission contained in
In Case T-54/96: Oleifici Italiani SpA, established at                  Mr Liikanen's letter of 18 September 1995 rejecting
Ostuni, Italy, Fratelli Rubino Industrie Olearie SpA,                   the applicant's request of 7 August 1995 for
established at Bari, Italy, represented by Antonio Tizzano,             verification and an enquiry as regards the proper
Gian Michele Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the                    conduct of the assessment procedure and the results of
Naples Bar, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, against                 Competition COM/A/904;
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Eugenio de March and Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application,              2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
first, for annulment of the letter of 7 February 1996 from
the Commission to inter alia the Italian authorities and
the Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato                 3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
Agricolo, the Italian intervention agency, allegedly
ordering the blocking of any payment due for the storage            (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
of olive oil for the 1991/1992 and 1992/1993 marketing
years, pending verification of its wax content, and,
second, for compensation for the damage allegedly
suffered by the applicants as a result of the Commission's
conduct Ð the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of: A. Kalogeropoulos, President, C. W. Bellamy
and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 September
                                                                                of 17 July 1998
1998, in which it:
                                                                    in Case T-118/96: Thai Bicycle Industry Co. Ltd v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                    (Dumping Ð Normal value Ð Constructed value Ð
                                                                    Production costs Ð Selling, general and administrative
                                                                          expenses Ð Profit margin Ð OEM adjustment)
2. Orders the applicants to pay their own costs and to
     bear those incurred by the Commission jointly and                                       (98/C 327/40)
     severally.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                    In Case T-118/96: Thai Bicycle Industry Co. Ltd,
                                                                    established in Samutprakarn (Thailand), represented by
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 327/23
Jean-FrancËois Bellis and Richard Luff, of the Brussels Bar,        1. The application is dismissed.
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
Council of the European Union (Agents: Antonio Tanca,               2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Hans-Jürgen Rabe and Georg M. Berrisch) Ð application
for the annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 648/96              (1) OJ C 199 of 28.6.1997.
of 28 March 1996 imposing a definitive anti-dumping
duty on imports of bicycles originating in Indonesia,
Malaysia and Thailand and collecting definitively the
provisional duties imposed (OJ L 91, 12.4.1996, p. 1) Ð
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
Composition), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R.
García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J. D. Cooke and M.                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the                             of 16 September 1998
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 July 1998, in which
it:                                                                 in Case T-215/97: Sari Kristiina Jouhki v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                    (Officials Ð Notice of competition Ð Refusal to admit to
1. Dismisses the application;                                                                competition)
                                                                                (98/C 327/42)
2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
( ) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.
 1
                                                                    In Case T-215/97: Sari Kristiina Jouhki, a nurse, residing
                                                                    in Pyhäjärvi, Finland, represented by Harri Ojala, of the
                                                                    Oulu Bar, against Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities (Agent: Esa Passivirta) Ð application for
                                                                    annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in Open
                                                                    Competition COM/B/973 not to allow the applicant to
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          take part in the competition Ð the Court of First Instance
                                                                    (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, K.
                       (Third Chamber)                              Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator,
                                                                    for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
                    of 15 September 1998
                                                                    1998 in which it:
in Case T-142/97: EugeÂnio Branco Ld.a v Commission of
               the European Communities (1)
                                                                    1. Dismisses the application;
(Actions for annulment Ð European Social Fund              Ð
Reduction of financial contribution Ð Certification by    the
                                                                    2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Member State Ð Error of assessment of the facts            Ð
Legitimate expectations Ð Legal certainty                  Ð
                        Proportionality)                            (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
                         (98/C 327/41)
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                            a
In Case T-142/97: EugeÂnio Branco Ld., established in                                      of 20 July 1998
Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Vila Nova
                                                                          in Case T-61/96: JoseÂ Francisco Meoro AvileÂs v
de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, 6 Rue Heine, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Maria               (Notices of competition Ð Non-submission of application
Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonsson) Ð application for                       Ð Action for annulment Ð Inadmissibility)
the annulment of the decision of the Commission C(96)
3170 of 16 December 1996 reducing a financial                                               (98/C 327/43)
contribution granted by the European Social Fund to the
applicant Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki,
Judges; Blanca Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 1998, the                In Case T-61/96: JoseÂ Francisco Meoro AvileÂs, a technical
operative part of which reads as follows:                           industrial engineer, residing in Alcantarilla (Spain),


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber) of 5 March 1998 in Case T-221/96: Immacolata Manzo-Tafaro v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Refusal to promote an official - Consideration of comparative merits - Age and seniority taken into consideration)

text:
11.4.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 113/15
residing at Luxembourg, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,            the Commission's decision published on 9 April 1996 in
of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                 so far as it refuses to promote the applicant to grade C 1
Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 30 rue de            in the 1996 promotions exercise Ð the Court of First
Cessange, v. Court of Justice of the European                       Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh,
Communities (Agent: Timothy Millett) Ð application for              President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor,
annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice of                Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 5 March
5 December 1995 appointing the applicant an official and            1998, in which it:
assigning her to the post of typist, in so far as that
decision classified her in grade C 4, step 3 Ð the Court of
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.                     1. dismissed the application,
Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J.
Pirrung, Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 4 March 1998, in which it:                  2. ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
1. annuls the decision of the Court of Justice of
    5 December 1995 appointing the applicant to the post
    of typist in grade C 4, in so far as it classifies her in
    step 3 of that grade,
2. orders the Court of Justice to pay the costs, apart
    from those incurred by the Council of the European                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    Union and those incurred by the applicant as a result                                of 13 February 1998
    of the Council's intervention,
                                                                          in Case T-275/97: GueÂrin Automobiles EURL v.
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
3. orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay              (Action for annulment Ð Time limit for bringing
    the costs incurred by the applicant as a result of its                    proceedings Ð Manifest inadmissibility)
    intervention.
                                                                                (98/C 113/38)
(1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    In Case T-275/97: GueÂrin Automobiles EURL, a company
                                                                    in judicial liquidation, established at AlencËon (France),
                                                                    acting in the person of Xavier LemeÂe, liquidator,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris and
                                                                    Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                      (Fourth Chamber)                              the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon,
                       of 5 March 1998                              v. Commission of the European Communities Ð
                                                                    application for annulment of Decision SG(97) D/3183 of
      in Case T-221/96: Immacolata Manzo-Tafaro v.                  the Commission of 25 April 1997 rejecting GueÂrin
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                   Automobiles' complaint concerning the standard-form
                                                                    dealership agreement for Nissan motor vehicles in France
(Officials Ð Refusal to promote an official Ð                       and the application thereof (Case IV-35.095 GueÂrin/
Consideration of comparative merits Ð Age and seniority             Nissan France) Ð the Court of First Instance (Second
                  taken into consideration)                         Chamber), composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and
                        (98/C 113/37)                               C. W. Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                    made an order on 13 February 1998, the operative part of
                                                                    which is as follows:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    1. the application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible,
In Case T-221/96: Immacolata Manzo-Tafaro, official
working for the Commission of the European
                                                                    2. the applicant is ordered to bear its own costs.
Communities, residing at Brussels, represented by Lucas
Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 8Ð10                (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and
Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð application for annulment of


title: Case C-460/03: Action brought on 31 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 304/20                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                     13.12.2003
Action brought on 31 October 2003 by the Commission                           from the register of Case C-28/02: Commission of the
        of the European Communities against Ireland                           European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
                          (Case C-460/03)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                          (2003/C 304/29)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 31 October 2003 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                              Removal from the register of Case C-162/02 (1)
by X. Lewis and M. Konstantinidis, acting as agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                                                     (2003/C 304/32)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  By order of 14 August 2003 the President of the Court of
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of                  from the register of Case C-162/02: Commission of the
      the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life                         European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
      vehicles (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      the directive and in particular its Article 10(1) and under             (1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.
      the Treaty establishing the European Community;
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-231/02 (1)
The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 21 April 2002.                                                                              (2003/C 304/33)
(1) OJ L 269, 21.10.2000, p. 34.
                                                                              By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                              from the register of Case C-231/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Neumayer Bau Ges.m.b.H v
                                                                              Abwasserverband Grossraum Bruck an der Leitha.
       Removal from the register of Case C-379/01 (1)
                          (2003/C 304/30)                                     (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
By order of 16 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-379/01 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt): Ortner GmbH v Allgemeine                            Removal from the register of Case C-380/02 (1)
Unfallversicherungsanstalt.
                                                                                (2003/C 304/34)
(1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
                                                                              By order of 18 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                              from the register of Case C-380/02 (Reference for a preliminary
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/02 (1)                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes
                                                                              Vorarlberg): Fantom Gebäudereinigung Gesellschaft GmbH v
                          (2003/C 304/31)                                     Dornbirn.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.
By order of 1st August 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal


title: Case C-534/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 12 October 2015 — Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș v BRD Groupe Société Générale — sucursala Satu Mare

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Satu Mare (Romania) lodged on 12 October 2015 — Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș v BRD Groupe Société Générale — sucursala Satu Mare
   (Case C-534/15)
   (2016/C 016/21)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Judecătoria Satu Mare

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Pavel Dumitraș, Mioara Dumitraș

      Defendant: BRD Groupe Société Générale — sucursala Satu Mare

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 2(b) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) as regards the definition of ‘consumer’, be interpreted as including in or, conversely, as excluding from, that definition natural persons who have, as guarantors/sureties, concluded additional acts and contracts (guarantee contracts, contracts providing immovable property as security) ancillary to the credit agreement entered into by a commercial company for the purposes of its business, where those natural persons have no connection with the activities of the commercial company and have acted for purposes unconnected with their trade, business or profession, in the light of the fact that, initially, the applicants were natural persons acting as guarantors of the principal debtor — a legal person of which one of the applicants was director — in connection with a loan agreement concluded with the defendant creditor, but subsequently the agreement in question was amended and the original debtor, of which the applicant referred to above was director, entered into a novation of the loan, with the agreement of the defendant creditor, with another legal person, neither of the applicants holding the position of director of that legal person but having undertaken, as sureties, for the benefit of the new debtor (a legal person), the obligation under the novation vis-à-vis the new debtor?

               2.

               Must Article 1(1) of Directive 93/13/EEC be interpreted as meaning that only contracts concluded between traders and consumers concerning the sale of goods or supply of services fall within the ambit of that directive or as meaning that contracts (contracts of guarantee and of surety) ancillary to a credit agreement, the beneficiary of which is a commercial company, concluded by natural persons who have no connection with the activities of that commercial company and who acted for purposes unconnected with their trade, business or profession also fall within the ambit of that directive, in the light of the fact that, initially, the applicants were natural persons acting as guarantors of the principal debtor — a legal person of which one of the applicants was director — in connection with a loan agreement concluded with the defendant creditor, but subsequently the agreement in question was amended and the original debtor, of which the applicant referred to above was director, entered into a novation of the loan, with the agreement of the defendant creditor, with another legal person, neither of the applicants holding the position of director of that legal person but having undertaken, as sureties, for the benefit of the new debtor (a legal person), the obligation under the novation vis-à-vis the new debtor?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95,p. 29).


title: Case T-238/13: Action brought on 24 April 2013 — Delipapier v Commission

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/39

         Action brought on 24 April 2013 — Delipapier v Commission
   (Case T-238/13)
   2013/C 171/78
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Delipapier (Frouard, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul, with immediate effect, on the basis of Article 263 TFEU, Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste, in so far as it adds rolls, tubes and cylinders, with the exception of those for industrial use, to the list of examples of packaging;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-202/13 Group’Hygiène v Commission.


title: Case C-122/16 P: Appeal brought on 26 February 2016 by British Airways plc against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2015 in Case T-48/11: British Airways plc v European Commission

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/9

         Appeal brought on 26 February 2016 by British Airways plc against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2015 in Case T-48/11: British Airways plc v European Commission
   (Case C-122/16 P)
   (2016/C 191/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: British Airways plc (represented by: J. Turner QC, R. O'Donoghue, Barristers, A. Lyle-Smythe, Solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the General Court’s judgment in so far as it limits the scope of the annulment of the contested European Commission Decision to the form of order sought by British Airways in its original application for annulment;

               —

               set aside paragraph 1 of the operative part of the General Court’s judgment;

               —

               annul the contested European Commission Decision in full; and

               —

               award British Airways the costs of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present application British Airways plc is seeking to have partially set aside the decision of the General Court rendered on 16 December 2015 in Case T-48/11, British Airways plc v European Commission. The Judgment partly annulled the Commission Decision C(2010) 7694 final of 9 November 2010 in Case COMP/39258 — Airfreight, in so far as it concerns British Airways.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, that the General Court erred in law by applying the concept of ultra petita to constrain its actions even when the General Court had of its own motion found there to be fundamental public policy defects which vitiated the European Commission’s Decision entirely. By raising a public policy issue of its own motion, and by deciding the case before it on that basis, the General Court did not rule ultra petita; the General Court therefore erred in law in considering itself restricted by ultra petita when it came to deciding on the consequences of its ruling in the operative part of its judgment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, that alternatively, even if the principle of ultra petita was engaged, the General Court should have held that it was nonetheless free — indeed obliged — to annul the contested Decision entirely in order to give effect to its conclusions that there was a defect in the contested Decision which violated superior norms of law, namely the principles of legality and of effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights.


title: Case T-400/09: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Ecka Granulate and non ferrum Metallpulver v European Commission (Competition — Cartels — Market in calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price fixing and market sharing — Fines — Principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties — 2006 guidelines for the calculation of the amount of fines — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Proportionality — Ability to pay)

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Ecka Granulate and non ferrum Metallpulver v European Commission
   (Case T-400/09) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - Market in calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price fixing and market sharing - Fines - Principle of the legality of criminal offences and penalties - 2006 guidelines for the calculation of the amount of fines - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - Ability to pay)
   2013/C 32/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Ecka Granulate GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany); non ferrum Metallpulver GmbH & Co. KG (St. Georgen bei Salzburg, Austria) (represented initially by: H. Janssen and M. Franz, and subsequently by: H. Janssen and P. Homann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Antoniadis, K. Mojzesowicz and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Simm and G. Kimberley, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ecka Granulate GmbH & Co. KG and non ferrum Metallpulver GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission and to bear their own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case F-35/14: Action brought on 14 April 2014 — ZZ v OHIM

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/46

         Action brought on 14 April 2014 — ZZ v OHIM
   (Case F-35/14)
   2014/C 184/78
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Pappas, lawyer)

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

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The Annulment of the decision of OHIM, drafted on the grounds of the decision of the president of the Office of 29 March 2012 concerning teleworking, not to authorise the applicant to telework in Barcelona, and thus, obliging her to return to Alicante.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the Defendant to bear the costs.


title: Case F-26/16: Action brought on 22 May 2016 — ZZ v eu-LISA and Commission

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/44

         Action brought on 22 May 2016 — ZZ v eu-LISA and Commission
   (Case F-26/16)
   (2016/C 296/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M. Greinoman, lawyer)

      Defendants:

   European Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale Information Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA)
   and
   European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision denying the applicant prior authorisation for medical treatment for her husband under the EU Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision rejecting the prior authorisation for the medical treatment of the applicant’s husband covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme;

               —

               declare that hepatitis C being suffered by the applicant’s husband is a serious disease within the meaning of Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the defendants to bear the costs.


title: Case T-57/11: Action brought on 27 January 2011 — Castelnou Energía v Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/33

         Action brought on 27 January 2011 — Castelnou Energía v Commission
   (Case T-57/11)
   2011/C 80/59
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Castelnou Energía, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Garayar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application for annulment admissible;

               —

               pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, annul the Decision;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by Castelnou Energía S.L. in these proceedings

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward eight pleas in law.

               —

               The first plea alleges infringement of Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1), since the Decision was adopted without the formal investigation procedure previously having been opened, despite the fact that there were serious doubts as to the compatibility of the Decision.

               —

               The second plea alleges infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU, of Article 107 TFEU in conjunction with Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999, since the Commission’s analysis of the measure was incomplete in that it failed to assess the compatibility of the measure at issue as a whole — the measure comprising three different elements (i.e. financial compensation for electricity producers, the preferential dispatch mechanism and the obligation to purchase domestic coal).

               —

               The third plea alleges infringement of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 296 TFEU, since the Commission failed to explain the reasons which led it not to assess the compatibility of all the components of the measure.

               —

               The fourth plea alleges infringement of the general principles of the right to a fair hearing and of sound administration which must govern the administrative procedure, given that Castelnou was not afforded an opportunity to put forward its arguments in the framework of the formal investigation procedure which should have been initiated by the Commission.

               —

               The fifth plea alleges infringement of Article 106(2) TFEU, of the Community framework for state aid in the form of public service compensation (OJ 2005 C 297, p. 4) and of Article 11(4) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37), given that (i) the measure is not justified on the grounds of any risk to the electricity supply, which would determine — as the Commission claims is the case — that there is a need for a service of general economic interest and (ii) even if there were a risk to the electricity supply (which there is not), the measure is in any event disproportionate to the objective of safeguarding the security of the electricity supply and is, therefore, unlawful.

               —

               The sixth plea alleges misuse of powers by the Commission, since, despite the existence of objective, relevant and coherent evidence showing that the measure is not intended to safeguard security of the electricity supply but rather to support the mining industry, the Commission based its decision finding the measure to be compatible on a reason which it knew not to be genuine, thereby adopting the decision for reasons other than those stated.

               —

               The seventh plea alleges illegality of the Decision, given that its adoption entails an infringement on the part of the Commission of the provisions of the TFEU which safeguard the free movement of goods (Articles 28 TFEU and 34 TFEU) and the freedom of establishment (Article 49 TFEU).

               —

               The eighth plea alleges an error of law on the part of the Commission, as the measure infringes certain provision of secondary European Union law, namely: Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61 (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), as amended by Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 63); Directive 2005/89/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 January 2006 concerning measures to safeguard security of electricity supply and infrastructure investment (OJ 2006 L 33, p. 22); and Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002 on State aid to the coal industry (OJ 2002 L 205, p. 1).


title: Case C-588/15 P: Appeal brought on 12 November 2015 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-91/13: LG Electronics, Inc. v European Commission

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/23

         Appeal brought on 12 November 2015 by LG Electronics, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2015 in Case T-91/13: LG Electronics, Inc. v European Commission
   (Case C-588/15 P)
   (2016/C 016/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: LG Electronics, Inc. (represented by: G. van Gerven, T. Franchoo, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the Judgment under appeal;

               —

               annul, in whole or in part, Articles 1.1(d) and 1.2(g), Articles 2.l(d) and 2.1(e), and Articles 2.2(d) and 2.2(e) of the Commission Decision C(2012) 8839 of 5 December 2012, insofar as they concern the Appellant; and/or

               —

               reduce the fines imposed on the Appellant in Articles 2.1 (d) & (e) and Articles 2.2(d) & (e);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Applicant raises four pleas in law.

      First Plea: the General Court violated the Appellant's rights of defence in so far as it upheld the Commission's Decision to keep LPD outside the administrative proceedings as a defendant and, in particular, not to address the statement of objections to LPD. In rejecting LGE's plea, the General Court violated also the principle of proportionality in defining LGE's duty of care.

      Second Plea: the General Court violated Article 101 TFEU and Article 23.2 of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) in so far as it held that the Commission was entitled to base LGE's fine on Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products made by LGE and Philips, which are undertakings different from LPD.

      Third Plea: in the alternative, the General Court violated Article 101 TFEU, Article 23 .2 of Regulation No 1/2003 and the principle of personal liability in so far as it held that the Commission was entitled to base LGE's fine on Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products made by Philips.

      Fourth Plea: the General Court violated the principle of equal treatment in so far as it ruled that the Commission was entitled to apply the methodology of Direct EEA Sales through Transformed Products to LGE, but not to Samsung SDI.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty OJ L 1, p. 1.


title: Case C-463/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 October 2012 — Copydan Båndkopi v Nokia Danmark A/S

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 16 October 2012 — Copydan Båndkopi v Nokia Danmark A/S
   (Case C-463/12)
   2012/C 399/23
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Copydan Båndkopi

      Defendant: Nokia Danmark A/S

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it compatible with Directive 2001/29/EC (1) for Member States to have legislation which guarantees compensation for the rightholders for reproductions made using the following sources:

                           1.

                           files where the use in question is approved by the rightholders and paid for by the customer (licensed content from online shops, for example);

                           2.

                           files where the use in question is approved by the rightholders and not paid for by the customer (licensed content, for example, in connection with a marketing action);

                           3.

                           the user’s own DVD, CD, MP3 player, computer, etc., where effective technological measures are not applied;

                           4.

                           the user’s own DVD, CD, MP3 player, computer, etc., where effective technological measures are applied;

                           5.

                           a third party’s DVD, CD, MP3 player, computer, etc.;

                           6.

                           unlawfully copied works from the Internet or other sources;

                           7.

                           files copied lawfully in some other way from, for example, the Internet (from lawful sources where no licence has been granted)?

               2.

               How must effective technological measures be taken into account, (ref. Article 6 of the Directive) in the Member States’ legislation on compensation for rightholders (ref. Article 5(2)(b) of the Directive)?

               3.

               In the calculation of compensation for private copying (ref. Article 5(2)(b) of the Directive), what constitutes ‘situations where the prejudice to the rightholder would be minimal’, as referred to in recital 35 in the preamble to the Directive, with the result that it will not be compatible with the Directive for the Member States to have legislation which provides for compensation for rightholders for such copying for private use (ref. in this connection the survey referred to in part 2 above)?

               4.

                           (a)

                           If it is assumed that the primary or most important function of memory cards in mobile phones is not private copying, is it compatible with the Directive for the Member States to have legislation which guarantees compensation for rightholders for copying on mobile phone memory cards?

                           (b)

                           If it is assumed that private copying is one of the several primary or essential functions of memory cards in mobile phones, is it compatible with the Directive for the Member States to have legislation which guarantees compensation for rightholders for copying on mobile phone memory cards?

               5.

               Is it compatible with the concept of ‘fair balance’ in recital 31 in the preamble to the Directive and with the uniform interpretation of the concept of ‘fair compensation’ (ref. Article 5(2)(b) of the Directive), which must be based on ‘prejudice’, for the Member States to have legislation under which remuneration is collected for memory cards, whereas no remuneration is collected for internal memory such as MP3 players or iPods, which are designed and primarily used for private copying?

               6.

                           (a)

                           Does the Directive preclude the Member States from having legislation which provides for the collection of remuneration for private copying from a producer and/or importer who sells memory cards to business concerns which sell the memory cards on to both private and business customers, without the producer’s and/or importer’s having knowledge of whether the memory cards have been sold to private or business customers?

                           (b)

                           Is the answer to question 6(a) affected if provisions are laid down in a Member State’s legislation which ensure that producers, importers and/or distributors do not have to pay remuneration for memory cards used for professional purposes, that producers, importers and/or distributors, where the remuneration has nevertheless been paid, can have the remuneration for memory cards refunded in so far as they are used for professional purposes, and that producers, importers and/or distributors can sell memory cards to other undertakings registered with the organisation which administers the remuneration scheme, without payment of remuneration?

                           (c)

                           Is the answer to questions 6(a) and 6(b) affected

                                       1.

                                       if provisions are laid down in a Member State’s legislation ensuring that producers, importers and/or distributors do not have to pay remuneration for memory cards used for professional purposes, but the concept of ‘professional purposes’ is interpreted as conferring a right of deduction applying only to undertakings approved by Copydan, whereas remuneration must be paid for memory cards used professionally by other business customers which are not approved by Copydan;

                                       2.

                                       if provisions are laid down in a Member State’s legislation ensuring that producers, importers and/or distributors, where the remuneration has in fact been paid (theoretically), can have remuneration for memory cards refunded where they are used for professional purposes, but (a) it is in practice only the purchaser of the memory card who can have the remuneration refunded, and (b) the purchaser of memory cards must submit an application for refund of remuneration to Copydan;

                                       3.

                                       if provisions are laid down in a Member State’s legislation ensuring that producers, importers and/or distributors may sell memory cards to other undertakings registered with the organisation which administers the remuneration scheme, without payment of remuneration, but (a) Copydan is the organisation which administers the remuneration scheme and (b) the registered undertakings have no knowledge of whether the memory cards have been sold to private or business customers?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).