title: Case C-286/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Treviso, Prima Sezione by order of that Court of 26 June 2002 in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l. against Prefettura di Treviso

text:
C 247/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12.10.2002
2.     If so, can such an objection be raised not only by the              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
       authority of destination but also by the authority of               Treviso, Prima Sezione by order of that Court of 26 June
       dispatch?                                                           2002 in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l. against Prefettura di
                                                                                Treviso
3.     If so, is the authority of dispatch entitled to base its
       assessment of whether the planned recovery of the waste
       at the place of destination is compatible with health and
       environmental imperatives on the standards applicable in
       the State of dispatch even where they are higher than the                                   (Case C-286/02)
       standards applicable in the State of destination?
4.     Under the second indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation
       No 259/93, can an objection to the shipment of waste                                        (2002/C 247/08)
       for recovery be raised on the ground that the planned
       recovery contravenes national laws and regulations relat-
       ing to environmental protection, public order, public
       safety or health protection?
5.     If so, can the authority of dispatch raise such an objection
       on the ground that the recovery contravenes national
       laws and regulations in force at the place of dispatch?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Treviso,
                                                                           Prima Sezione (District Court, Treviso, First Chamber) of
                                                                           26 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on 5 August
                                                                           2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bellio F. lli S.r.l.
                                                                           against Prefettura di Treviso on the following questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Minden by order of that Court of 26 July 2002                        1.   Are the first indent of Article 2(2) of Council Decision
in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg against Land                           2000/766 ( 1) and Article 1(1) of Commission Decision
                       Nordrhein-Westfalen                                      2001/9 ( 2), read together with the other Community rules
                                                                                on which those provisions are based, to be interpreted as
                          (Case C-285/02)                                       meaning that the accidental presence of an unforeseen or
                                                                                prohibited substance in fish flour used in the production
                                                                                of feed-stuffs for animals other than ruminants may be
                          (2002/C 247/07)                                       considered both legally and materially acceptable and
                                                                                that, accordingly, traders are allowed a reasonable margin
                                                                                of error?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Minden (Administrative Court, Minden) of 26 July 2002,                     2.   In the affirmative, in the light of the principle of
received at the Court Registry on 2 August 2002, for a                          proportionality and the principle of precaution, and in
preliminary ruling in the case of Edeltraud Elsner-Lakeberg                     consideration of the Community provisions applicable in
against Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following question:                     the domains in which reference is made to accidental
                                                                                contamination of food-industry products and indications
                                                                                are given of relevant margins of error, does an accidental
Is it compatible with Article 141 EC in conjunction with                        contamination of 0.1 %, and in any case of not more
Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 ( 1) on the                    than 0,5 %, of fragments of mammalian bone in fish flour
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to                      intended for the production of feed-stuffs for animals
the application of the principle of equal pay for men and                       other than ruminants warrant the adoption of a draconian
women that men and women teachers, part-time as well as                         sanction such as the complete destruction of that fish
full-time, who are officials in the Land North-Rhine Westphalia                 flour?
are not granted remuneration for excess hours worked if that
additional work does not exceed three teaching periods in the
calendar month?
                                                                           3.   Does the exclusion of any margin of error in relation to
                                                                                the presence of the substances mentioned in the preceding
( 1) OJ L 45, p. 19.
                                                                                questions amount to the introduction of a technical
                                                                                standard within the meaning of Directive 83/189 ( 3) (as
                                                                                amended) which would have to be notified in advance to
                                                                                the European Commission?
 ---pagebreak--- 12.10.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 247/5
4.    Are the provisions of Article 28 and 30 EC on the free             Pleas in law and main arguments
      movement of goods, applicable to Norway on the basis
      of Articles 8 to 16 of the European Economic Area
      Agreement (EEA Agreement), to be interpreted, with                 According to the Commission, current Greek legislation is not
      reference to the provisions contained in Council Decision          consistent with Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92. The fact that
      2000/766/EC and Commission Decision 2001/9 cited in                the regulation is of direct application and its provisions prevail
      question (1) above, as meaning that a Member State may             over national law does not release Member States from the
      not impose a requirement of zero error in a situation              obligation to repeal national provisions incompatible with
      such as that described in questions (1) and (2) above?             Community law.
( 1) OJ L 306 of 7.12.2000, p. 32.                                       As regards the classification of the ports of the Peloponnese as
( 2) OJ L 2 of 5.1.2001, p. 32.                                          island ports, the Commission points out that the Peloponnese
( 3) OJ L 109 of 26.4.1983, p. 8.                                        is separated from the rest of Greece by a man-made canal and
                                                                         is linked by road and rail with the rest of the country. It
                                                                         therefore accords with common sense, and also with the case-
                                                                         law of the Court of Justice (see Joined Cases C-15/98 and
                                                                         C-105/99 Italy and Sardegna Lines v Commission [2000] ECR
                                                                         I-8855, paragraph 55), for the Peloponnese to be considered
                                                                         part of mainland Greece.
Action brought on 9 August 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                         Finally, as regards island cabotage, the Commission submits
                                                                         that, while host State rules apply for regulating manning-
                          (Case C-288/02)                                related issues, those rules must not, however, in any event be
                                                                         contrary to Article 49 of the EC Treaty.
                          (2002/C 247/09)
                                                                         (1 ) OJ L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 August
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by K. Simonsson and M. Patakia, Legal Advisers,
with an address for service in Luxembourg. The applicant
claims that the Court should declare that by:                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Royal Court of
                                                                         Jersey, Samedi Division, by order of that court dated
—     expressly conferring the right to carry passengers between         5 August 2002, in the case of Jersey Produce Marketing
      Greek mainland ports solely upon Greek passenger ships             Organisation Ltd against 1) The States of Jersey and
      and the right to carry out tours with passenger ships of a         2) Jersey Potato Export Marketing Board, Interveners:
      gross tonnage exceeding 650 gt by way of island cabotage                 1) Top Produce Limited and 2) Fairview Farm Ltd
      solely upon Greek passenger ships,
—     requiring in the case of Community ships entered in a                                        (Case C-293/02)
      second or international register a certificate from the
      competent authority of the flag State declaring that that                                    (2002/C 247/10)
      ship is allowed to provide cabotage services,
—     considering that the Peloponnese constitues an island,
      and                                                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Royal Court of
—     applying to Community tankers, freighters, passenger               Jersey, Samedi Division, dated 5 August 2002, which was
      ships and tourist ships, and to cruise ships which carry           received at the Court Registry on 13 August 2002, for a
      out sea tours by way of island cabotage its rules as host          preliminary ruling in the case of Jersey Produce Marketing
      State relating to manning conditions, and requiring the            Organisation Ltd against 1) The States of Jersey and 2) Jersey
      shipowners to submit an application to the competent               Potato Export Marketing Board, Interveners: 1) Top Produce
      authorities for measurement of the gross tonnage of the            Limited and 2) Fairview Farm Ltd, on the following questions:
      ship, in order for the Greek authorities to calculate the
      basic composition of the crew,                                     1.     Is a statutory Scheme such as that which regulates the
                                                                                export of potatoes from Jersey to the United Kingdom to
the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                be considered as a measure having an effect equivalent to
Articles 1, 3 and 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92                      quantitative restrictions on exports, contrary to Article 29
of 7 December 1992 (1) applying the principle of freedom to                     EC, by reason of the fact that potatoes sent directly from
provide services to maritime transport within Member States                     Jersey to the United Kingdom may travel via another
(maritime cabotage).                                                            Member State but without leaving the carrying vessel?


title: Case C-246/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 7 May 2002 in the case of Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Ricardas Jonusas

text:
C 202/14               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.8.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección: Ter-                 hof by order of that Court of 7 May 2002 in the case of
cera by order of that Court of 16 May 2002 in the                           Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Ricardas Jonusas
appeal brought by Asociación Profesional de Empresas de
Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia and Asocia-
ción Nacional de Empresas de Externalización y Gestión                                          (Case C-246/02)
                de Envı́os y Pequeña Paqueterı́a
                                                                                (2002/C 202/20)
                         (Case C-240/02)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
                         (2002/C 202/19)                                  (Federal Finance Court) of 7 May 2002, received at the Court
                                                                          Registry on 8 July 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                          Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Hafen against Ricardas Jonusas on the
                                                                          following questions:
                                                                          1.   Is Article 4(19) of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
                                                                               meaning that the notification to the customs authorities
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         of the arrival at a particular place of goods introduced into
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala                    the Community customs territory must refer expressly
de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección: Tercera (Supreme                   to goods which are hidden or concealed in secret
Court, Contentious-Administrative Chamber, Third Section) of                   compartments?
16 May 2002, received at the Court Registry on 1st July 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Asociación
Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Corres-                2.   If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:
pondencia (Trade Association of Mail Delivery and Handling
Companies) and Asociación Nacional de Empresas de Exter-                      Is Article 40 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as
nalización y Gestión de Envı́os y Pequeña Paqueterı́a (National             meaning that such notification must also be made by the
Association of Companies dedicated to the Externalisation and                  driver of a lorry who was not aware and should not have
Handling of Letters and Small Packages) on the following                       been aware of the goods hidden or concealed in the lorry?
questions:
Does the interpretation of Recital 21 to Directive 97/67/EC (1)
permit the exclusion from ‘self-provision’ of postal services
provided by the sender (or another person acting exclusively
on his behalf), if that person is not also the receiver, if the
services are provided in the course of his commercial activity,           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
or carried out using the mailbag system or other similar                  Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione
methods, or if self-provision disrupts the services reserved to           staccata di Brescia by order of that Court of 22 June 2002
the universal service provider?                                           in the case of Sintesi S.p.A. against Autorità per la
                                                                          Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici; intervener: Ingg. Provera e
                                                                                Carrassi S.p.A.
May money order services be included amongst those reserved                                        (Case C-247/02)
to the universal postal service provider?
                                                                                (2002/C 202/21)
(1) Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
    of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of
    the internal market of Community postal services and the              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    improvement of quality of service. (OJ L 15 of 21.1.1998, p. 14.)     European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
                                                                          tivo Regionale per la Lombardia Sezione staccata di Brescia
                                                                          (Lombardy Regional Administrative Court, Brescia Chamber)
                                                                          of 22 June 2002, received at the Court Registry on 8 July
                                                                          2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Sintesi S.p.A.
                                                                          against Autorità per la Vigilanza sui Lavori Pubblici; intervener:
                                                                          Ingg. Provera e Carrassi S.p.A. on the following questions:


title: Case C-160/06: Action brought on  24 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/33

         Action brought on 24 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-160/06)
   (2006/C 131/63)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Montaguti, G. Zavvos, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/51/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2003 on the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies, banks and other financial institutions and insurance undertakings, or, in any case, by failing to communicate such measures to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing that directive into national law expired on 1 January 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 178, 17.7.2003, p. 16


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 6 June 1996 in Case T-262/94: Jean Baiwir v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Plea of illegality - Consistency between the complaint and the application - New method of assessing career profiles for Categories B, C and D at the Commission - List of officials considered most deserving of promotion - Articles 5 (3) and 45 of the Staff Regulations - Principle of non-discrimination - Manifest errors of assessment of fact and law - Action for damages)

text:
24 . 8 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 247/ 11
3 . If the answer to the preceding question is in the                          Removal from the register of Case C-306/95 ( )
      affirmative, the Court of Justice is asked to rule whether                                  ( 96/C 247/21 )
      the Community legal order is compatible with a national
      provision which provides that a prescription period
      should start to run ( to the detriment of a citizen of a
      Member State relying on the provisions of a directive in           By order of 29 April 1996 , the President of the Court of
      order to obtain repayment of a charge which was unduly             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      collected ) before that directive was correctly transposed         from the register of Case C-306/95 : Commission of the
      into national law .                                                European Communities v. United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                         and Northern Ireland .
(!) 1993 | ECR 1-1915 .
( 2 ) O } No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p . 25 .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            of 5 June 1996                                                       of 6 June 1996
in Case T-398/94 : Kahn Scheepvaart BV v. Commission of                  in Case T-262/94 : Jean Baiwir v. Commission of the
                   the European Communities ( 1 )                                          European Communities ( ' )
(State aid — Shipbuilding — General aid scheme — Action                  (Officials — Plea of illegality — Consistency between the
                 for annulment — Admissibility)                          complaint and the application — New method of assessing
                             ( 96/C 247/22 )                             careerprofiles for Categories B, C and D at the Commission
                                                                         — List of officials considered most deserving ofpromotion
                                                                         — Articles 5 (3) and 45 of the StaffRegulations — Principle
                                                                         of non-discrimination — Manifest errors of assessment of
                  (Language of the case: English)                                    fact and law — Action for damages)
                                                                                ( 96 /C 247/23 )
In Case T-398/94 : Kahn Scheepvaart BV, established in
Rotterdam ( Netherlands ), represented by Thomas Jestaedt,
Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, and Tom R. Ottervanger, of the
Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                                (Language of the case: French)
at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen , 67 Rue Ermesinde, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: Paul
Nemitz and Jean-Paul Keppenne ) — application for
annulment of the Commission 's decision of 25 October
 1994 authorizing for 1994 a German aid scheme for
shipbuilding — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber,              In Case T-262/94 : Jean Baiwir, an official of the
Extended Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President,              Commission of the European Communities , residing at
B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges;             Court-Saint-Etienne ( Belgium ), represented by Georges
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has               Vandersanden , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
given a judgment on 5 June 1996 , in which it:                           service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                         Sari, 1 Rue Glesener v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agents : first, Joseph Griesmar, then Julian
 1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;                          Currall , both assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — application
                                                                         for annulment of the list of officials considered most
                                                                         deserving of promotion to Grade B 4 under the 1993
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                               promotion procedure in so far as it does not contain the
                                                                         applicant's name, reinstatement of the applicant in his
                                                                         career as an official in Grade B 4/2 with effect from
(') OJ No C 400 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                          1 January 1993 and compensation for the non-material
                                                                         damage suffered — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
                                                                         Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh
                                                                         and J. D. Cooke , Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,
                                                                         for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 June 1996 , the
                                                                         operative part of which is as follows:
 ---pagebreak---  No C 247/ 12          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 24 . 8 . 96
  1 . the application is rejected;                                    Hemau , represented by Hartwig Schneider, Rechtsanwalt, 8
                                                                      Pacellistraße, Munich, against Commission of the European
 2 . each of the parties will bear its own costs.                     Communities ( Agents : Ulrich Wölker and Claudia Schmidt )
                                                                      — application for the annulment of Commission Regulation
 (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .                                    ( EEC ) No 525/93 of 8 March 1993 establishing the value of
                                                                      the final regional reference amounts for producers of soya
                                                                      beans, rape seed, colza seed and sunflower seed for the
                                                                       1992/93 marketing year ( OJ No L 56 , 1993 , p. 18 ) — the
                                                                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of
                         of 6 June 1996                               H. Kirschner, President, and B. Vesterdorf, C. W. Bellamy,
 in Case T-391/94 : Jean Baiwir v. Commission of the                  A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki , Judges; H. Jung,
                   European Communities ( 1 )                         Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 July 1996 , in which it :
 (Officials — Act adversely affecting an official —                   I. dismisses the application as inadmissible;
  Time-limits under the Staff Regulations — Inadmissibility
                    — Action for damages).                            2 . orders the applicants jointly and severally to pay the
                           ( 96/C 247/24 )                                 costs .
                (Language of the case: French)                        (') OJ No C 177, 29 . 6 . 1993 .
 In Case T-391 /94 : Jean Baiwir, an official of the
 Commission of the European Communities , residing at
 Court-Saint-Etienne ( Belgium ), represented by Georges
 Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Sari , 1 Rue Glesener v. Commission of the European                                         of 11 July 1996
 Communities ( Agents : first, Joseph Griesmar, then Julian
 Currall, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for           in Joined Cases T-528/93 , T-542/93 , T-543/93' and
 annulment of the memorandum of 12 February 1993 from                T-546/93 : Métropole Télévision SA and Others v.
the Head of Unit IX . A. 6 of the Commission, purporting to                  Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
classify the applicant as 'cross-category' for the purposes of        (Competition — Decisions of associations of undertakings
the 1 993 promotions within the career bracket, and also for         — Agreements between undertakings — Exemption
an order that the applicant be reinstated in his career as an                                      decision)
official in Grade B 4/2 with retroactive effect from 1 January                                 ( 96/C 247/26 )
 1993 , and compensation for the non-material damage
suffered — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ),
composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh and J. D.                    (Languages of the case: Spanish, French and Italian)
Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 June 1996 , the operative            In Joined Cases T-528/93 , T-542/93 , T-543/93 and
part of which is as follows :                                        T-546/93 : Métropole Television SA, established in Paris,
                                                                     represented by Pierre Deprez, Philippe Dian and , at the
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                   hearing, by Didier Théophile, all of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
2 . each of the parties will bear its own costs.                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue , Reti Televisive Italiana SpA,
                                                                     established in Rome, represented by Carlo Mezzanotte and
(') OJ No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                     Giovanni Motzo, of the Rome Bar, and Aurelio Pappalardo,
                                                                     of the Trapani Bar, and, at the hearing, by Massimo Merola ,
                                                                     of the Trapani Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
                                                                     Albert Ier , supported by Sociedade Independente de
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Comunicação SA ( SIC ), established at Linda-a-Velha
                        of 10 July 1996                              ( Portugal ), represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, of the
       in Case T-482/93 : Martin Weber and Others v.                 Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )                 the Chambers of Carole Kerschen , 31 Grand-Rue,
                                                                     Gestevisión Telecinco SA, established in Madrid ,
(Common agriculturalpolicy — Support system for oilseeds             represented by Santiago Munoz Machado, of the Madrid
— Regulations (EEC) Nos 3766/91 and 525/93 — Actions                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
        for annulment of measures — Inadmissibility)                 Chambers of Carlos Amo Quinones, 2 Rue Gabriel
                          ( 96/ C 247/25 )                           Lippmann , and Antena 3 de Television , established in
                                                                     Madrid , represented by Fernando Pombo Garcia , Ricardo
               (Language of the case: German)                        Garcia Vicente , Emiliano Garayar Gutierrez and Maria
                                                                     Luisa Tierno Centella , of the Madrid Bar, with an address
In Case T-482/93 : Martin Weber and Maria Weber, residing            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude
at Hemau ( Germany ), Martin Weber GdbR , established at             Wassenich , 6 Rue Dicks, against Commission of the


title: Case T-496/07: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Spanish market for penetration bitumen — Annual market-sharing and price-fixing agreements — Rights of defence — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Principle that penalties must be specific to the offender — Calculation of the amount of the fine — Res judicata)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/14

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades and Others v Commission
   (Case T-496/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Spanish market for penetration bitumen - Annual market-sharing and price-fixing agreements - Rights of defence - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Principle that penalties must be specific to the offender - Calculation of the amount of the fine - Res judicata)
   2013/C 336/28
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, SA, formerly Repsol Lubricantes YPF y Especialidades, SA (Madrid, Spain); Repsol Petróleo, SA (Madrid); and Repsol, SA, formerly Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, J. Buendía Sierra, M. Muñoz de Juan and Á. Givaja Sanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 4441 final of 3 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP-38.710 Bitumen (Spain)), and for reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Dismisses the claim of the European Commission seeking an increase of the amount of the fine;

               3.

               Orders Repsol Lubricantes y Especialidades, SA, Repsol Petróleo, SA and Repsol, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of 6 January 2004 in Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P: Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV against Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Competition — Parallel imports — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Meaning of agreement between undertakings — Proof of the existence of an agreement — Market in pharmaceutical products)

text:
C 59/2                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              6.3.2004
5.    Orders Ciments français SA and the Commission of the                   1.    Dismisses the appeals;
      European Communities to bear their own costs in Case C-211/
      00 P.                                                                  2.    Orders the Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV,
                                                                                Bayer AG and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical
                                                                                Industries’ Associations to bear their own costs in relation to
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.08.2000.                                                        Case C-2/01 P;
                                                                             3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs in relation to Case C-3/01 P;
                                                                             4.    Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear its own costs.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 79 of 10.03.2001.
                         of 6 January 2004
in Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P: Bundesverband
der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV against Commission of
                 the European Communities (1)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
(Appeals — Competition — Parallel imports — Article 85(1)
of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Meaning of
agreement between undertakings — Proof of the existence of                                          of 11 November 2003
    an agreement — Market in pharmaceutical products)
                                                                                in Case C-488/01 P: Jean-Claude Martinez (1)
                          (2004/C 59/02)
                                                                             (Appeal — Statement of formation of a group under
                   (Language of the case: German)                            Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European
                                                                             Parliament — Lack of political affinities — Retroactive
                                                                             dissolution of the TDI Group — Appeal manifestly inadmis-
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                sible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/03)
In Joined Cases C-2/01 P and C-3/01 P: Bundesverband der
Arzneimittel-Importeure eV, established in Mülheim an der                                         (Language of the case: French)
Ruhr (Germany), (Agnets: U. Zinsmeister and W.A. Rehmann),
with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies                                            in the European Court Reports)
(EAEPC), established in Brussels (Belgium), (Agents: M. Epping
and M. Lienemeyer), with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: K. Wiedner and W. Wils, assisted by H.-J. Freund),                  In Case C-488/01 P, Jean-Claude Martinez, a member of
with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by                      the European Parliament, residing in Montpellier (France),
Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse), and by European                         represented by F. Wagner and V. de Poulpiquet de Brescanvel,
Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC): two                    avocats: Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
Appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                  Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended                         Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99
Composition) of 26 October 2000 in Case T-41/96 Bayer v                      and T-329/99 Martinez and Others v Parliament [2001]
Commission [2000] ECR II-3383, seeking to have that judg-                    ECR II-2823, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
ment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being: Bayer            parties to the proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents:
AG, established in Leverkusen (Germany), (Agent: J. Sedemund)                G. Garzón Clariana, J. Schoo and H. Krück), defendant at first
with an address for service in Luxembourg, and European                      instance, Charles de Gaulle, a member of the European
Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries’ Associations, estab-                Parliament, residing in Paris (France), applicant at first instance,
lished in Geneva (Switzerland), (Agent: A. Woodgate), the                    the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,
Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,                          C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha
C.W.A. Timmermans and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of                    Rodrigues and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers,
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, J.-                    D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen,
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von               F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                       Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             order on 11 November 2003, the operative part of which is as
on 6 January 2004, in which it:                                              follows:


title: Case T-808/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Spain v Commission (State aid — Digital television — Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Economic activity — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Distortion of competition — Article 107(3)(c) TFEU — Duty of diligence — Reasonable period — Legal certainty — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Subsidiarity — Right to information)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/27

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 December 2016 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-808/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Digital television - Aid for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less-urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Economic activity - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Distortion of competition - Article 107(3)(c) TFEU - Duty of diligence - Reasonable period - Legal certainty - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Subsidiarity - Right to information))
   (2017/C 038/36)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, and subsequently by A. Gavela Llopis, abogados del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, P. Němečková and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2014) 6846 final of 1 October 2014 on State aid SA.27408 ((C 24/2010) (ex NN 37/2010, ex CP 19/2009)) implemented by the authorities of Castilla-La Mancha for the deployment of digital terrestrial television in remote and less urbanised areas of Castilla-La Mancha, as amended by Decision C(2015) 7193 final of 20 October 2015 correcting certain errors contained in Decision C(2014) 6846 final.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case T-599/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014  — Eni v OHIM — Emi (IP) (ENI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ENI — Earlier Community figurative mark EMI — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods and services — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial refusal of registration)

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2014 — Eni v OHIM — Emi (IP) (ENI)
   (Case T-599/11) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ENI - Earlier Community figurative mark EMI - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial refusal of registration))
   2014/C 212/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: C. Negro and D. Botis, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Emi (IP) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2011 (Case R 2439/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Emi (IP) Ltd and Eni SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Eni SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-174/14: Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission (State aid — Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings — Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU — Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/51

         Order of the General Court of 9 June 2015 — Dieckerhoff Guss v Commission
   (Case T-174/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Measures adopted by Germany in favour of electricity generated from renewable energy sources and of energy-intensive undertakings - Decision to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU - Adoption of the final decision after the action was brought - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 294/62)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Dieckerhoff Guss GmbH (Gevelsberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, and by C. Renner, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: initially X. Lewis, M. Schneider and J. Kaasin, then X. Lewis, M. Schneider, M. Moustakali and C. Perrin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul in part Commission decision C (2013) 4424 final of 18 December 2013 to open the procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU regarding measures implemented by the Federal Republic of Germany in favour of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users (State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN)).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the applications for intervention submitted by Flachglas Torgau GmbH and Saint-Gobain Isover G+H AG, by Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG and Kronoply GmbH, by Bayer MaterialScience AG, by Sabic Polyolefine GmbH, by Ineos Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Ineos Phenol GmbH and Ineos Vinyls Deutschland GmbH, and by Advansa GmbH, Akzo Nobel Industrial Chemicals GmbH, Aurubis AG, CBW Chemie GmbH, CFB Chemische Fabrik Brunsbüttel GmbH & Co. KG, Clariant Produkte (Deutschland) GmbH, Dralon GmbH, Hahl Filaments GmbH, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Siegen, Messer Produktionsgesellschaft mbH Salzgitter, Nabaltec AG, Siltronic AG and Wacker Chemie AG.

               3.

               Dieckerhoff Guss GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

               4.

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


title: Case F-142/11 RENV: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016 —Simpson v Council (Civil service — Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside — Officials — Upgrade — Decision not to award the applicant grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition — Obligation to state grounds — Equal treatment — Manifest error of assessment — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/36

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 24 June 2016 —Simpson v Council
   (Case F-142/11 RENV) (1)

   ((Civil service - Referral back to the Tribunal after setting aside - Officials - Upgrade - Decision not to award the applicant grade AD 9 after he had passed a grade AD 9 open competition - Obligation to state grounds - Equal treatment - Manifest error of assessment - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly unfounded))
   (2016/C 287/44)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Erik Simpson (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and E. Rebasti, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AD 9 after he had been successful in competition EPSO/AD/113/07 ‘Heads of unit (AD 9) in the field of translation having Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene as their main language’, and an application for damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Simpson shall bear his own costs in Cases F-142/11, T-130/14 P and F-142/11 RENV respectively and pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union in Case F-142/11.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union shall bear its own costs in Cases T-130/14 P and F 142/11 RENV.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3/3/2012, p. 26 (initial case).


title: Case F-64/07: Action brought on 28 June 2007 — S v European Parliament

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/53

         Action brought on 28 June 2007 — S v European Parliament
   (Case F-64/07)
   (2007/C 199/103)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: S (represented by: R. Mastroianni and F. Ferraro, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Decision No 305747 of the European Parliament of 29 March 2007 rejecting his complaint;

               —

               annul the European Parliament's decision of 27 July 2006 reassigning him to Brussels and appointing him adviser to the Director General for Information;

               —

               annul all acts, previous, concomitant or consequential, and in any way connected;

               —

               order the European Parliament to indemnify the loss sustained as a result of that decision, in the sum of EUR 400 000 or such greater or lesser sum as the Court may think fit;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action the applicant puts forward seven pleas in law which may be summarised as follows:

               1.

               the decision to reassign him was unlawful for lack of reasoning explaining why the Parliament had decided to transfer the applicant to its seat in Brussels;

               2.

               the decision to reassign him, involving the removal of a seriously sick person to a distant place, was contrary to the fundamental right to health enshrined in Articles 3(p) and 152 EC, and in Article 35 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Protecting the applicant's health ought to have prevailed over the interests of the service;

               3.

               the Parliament breached its duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, and the principles of proper administration, impartiality, transparency and legal certainty. As a matter of fact, the institution failed to carry out, before adopting the decision to reassign the applicant, an adequate investigation of the hostile attitudes with which the applicant was confronted or to have the effects of such a decision on his health evaluated from a medical point of view;

               4.

               the decision to reassign him, which was in essence a penalty, was unreasonable and disproportionate in relation to the matters for which the Parliament holds him responsible, especially as he suffers from a serious disease and is close to the age of retirement;

               5.

               the Parliament, having failed to pay particular attention to the applicant's situation on account of his health, has contravened the principles of equal treatment and ‘neminem laedere’ (do harm to no one);

               6.

               by adopting the decision to reassign him the Parliament used its own powers to punish the applicant and to bring about the early termination of the employment relationship, so committing a misuse of power and an abuse of process, and also infringing Articles 7 and 86 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities and of Annex IX thereto;

               7.

               the applicant was not placed in a position in which he could express his point of view on the decision under discussion to reassign him to Brussels, in breach of his rights of the defence.


title: Case T-320/15: Action brought on 19 June 2015 — Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro v Commission

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/22

         Action brought on 19 June 2015 — Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro v Commission
   (Case T-320/15)
   (2015/C 254/25)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro SpA (Vicenza, Italy) (represented by: M. Merola, M. Santacroce and M. Toniolo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul it its entirety the contested decision, by which the Commission excluded Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro SpA from participation in all procedures for the award of contracts and grants financed by the general budget of the European Union, including procedure No JRC/IPR/2014/C.5/0003 RC published in OJ 2014/S 034-054569 and subsequent corrigenda, for a period of two years and ten months;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The exclusion procedure was initiated when the applicant participated in a restricted call for tender issued by the Joint Research Centre on 18 February 2014 for the construction of a new building on its Ispra site. The Commission was aware of certain irregularities on the part of the applicant.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure to conduct an investigation, misrepresentation of the facts and a consequential error in law consisting in failure to apply the derogation laid down in the final sub-paragraph of Article 106(1) of the Financial Regulation.

                           —

                           The applicant claims, in that regard, that the contested decision is vitiated by failure to conduct an investigation, misrepresentation of the facts and a consequent error in law, in so far as the final sub-paragraph of Article 106(1) of Regulation No 966/2012 was not applied in the present case. In particular, the Commission erred in failing to recognise that, in the present case, the criteria under Article 106(1)(b) of Regulation No 966/2012 were satisfied, and in failing properly to take into account the documentary evidence submitted by Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro SpA during the investigation for the purpose of demonstrating that it had adopted ‘adequate measures’ against Dr Maltauro.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Article 106(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation is inapplicable.

                           —

                           The applicant claims, in that regard, in the alternative, that the contested decision is vitiated as a result of misrepresentation of the facts and failure to state reasons, in so far as the applicant was held liable for grave professional misconduct within the meaning of Article 106(1)(c) of Regulation No 966/2012. The documents concerning the judicial problems involving Dr Maltauro do not show that Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro SpA failed to fulfil its duties of diligence and contractual good faith, or that that company benefitted from the unlawful conduct imputed to its former Managing Director. There was therefore no evidence to support the view that Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro SpA was guilty of grave professional misconduct as cited in the ground for exclusion.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the audi alteram partem rule.

                           —

                           The applicant claims, in that regard, also in the alternative, that the contested decision is also vitiated owing to infringement of the audi alteram partem rule, since it is based on information which was not referred to by the Commission in its letter initiating the procedure, with regard to which Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro SpA was never given the opportunity to submit its comments. Accordingly, the applicant could not defend itself properly in relation to the evidence which ultimately proved to be decisive for the purposes of its exclusion from all procedures for the award of contracts and grants financed by the general budget of the European Union and the European Development Fund.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in determining the exclusion period.

                           —

                           The applicant claims, in that regard, once again in the alternative, that the exclusion decision was adopted in breach of the principle of proportionality, in particular in so far as it sets the exclusion period at two years and ten months. That period is wholly unjustified, contrary to the spirit and purpose of the rules laid down in Regulation No 966/2012 and Regulation No 1268/2012, which govern grounds for exclusion, and clearly disproportionate, since the factors which could have had negative effects on the professional conduct of Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro SpA were eliminated by that company and there was no further reason for the Commission to fear financial losses or reputational harm.


title: Case C-493/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc (Medicinal products for human use — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 3 — Conditions for obtaining such a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria — Wording of the claims of the basic patent — Precision and specificity — Functional definition of an active ingredient — Structural definition of an active ingredient — European Patent Convention)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Eli Lilly and Company Ltd v Human Genome Sciences Inc
   (Case C-493/12) (1)

   (Medicinal products for human use - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3 - Conditions for obtaining such a certificate - Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ - Criteria - Wording of the claims of the basic patent - Precision and specificity - Functional definition of an active ingredient - Structural definition of an active ingredient - European Patent Convention)
   2014/C 45/24
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eli Lilly and Company Ltd

      Defendant: Human Genome Sciences Inc

      Re:

   Interpretation of Article 3(a) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1) — Conditions for obtaining a certificate — Concept of a ‘product protected by a basic patent in force’ — Criteria for assessment — Application of criteria to products not composed of a combination of medicinal products and medical devices

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3(a) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for an active ingredient to be regarded as ‘protected by a basic patent in force’ within the meaning of that provision, it is not necessary for the active ingredient to be identified in the claims of the patent by a structural formula. Where the active ingredient is covered by a functional formula in the claims of a patent issued by the European Patents Office, Article 3(a) of that regulation does not, in principle, preclude the grant of a supplementary protection certificate for that active ingredient, on condition that it is possible to reach the conclusion on the basis of those claims, interpreted inter alia in the light of the description of the invention, as required by Article 69 of the Convention on the Grant of European Patents and the Protocol on the interpretation of that provision, that the claims relate, implicitly but necessarily and specifically, to the active ingredient in question, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court.

      (1)  OJ C 9, 12.1.2013.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 93, 16.4.2005

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/44

         (2005/C 106/86)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 93, 16.4.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 82, 2.4.2005

      OJ C 69, 19.3.2005

      OJ C 57, 5.3.2005

      OJ C 45, 19.2.2005

      OJ C 31, 5.2.2005

      OJ C 19, 22.1.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-320/07: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Jones and Others v Commission (ECSC Treaty — Supply of coal intended for the United Kingdom electricity generation industry — Rejection of a complaint alleging discriminatory pricing — Commission’s competence to apply Article 4(b) CS following expiry of the ECSC Treaty, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Assessment of Community interest — Obligations in relation to the investigation of a complaint — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Jones and Others v Commission
   (Case T-320/07) (1)

   (ECSC Treaty - Supply of coal intended for the United Kingdom electricity generation industry - Rejection of a complaint alleging discriminatory pricing - Commission’s competence to apply Article 4(b) CS following expiry of the ECSC Treaty, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Assessment of Community interest - Obligations in relation to the investigation of a complaint - Manifest error of assessment)
   2012/C 13/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Daphne Jones (Neath, United Kingdom), Glen Jones (Neath), and Fforch-Y-Garon Coal Co. Ltd (Neath) (represented by: D. Jeffreys and S. Llewellyn Jones, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and J. Samnadda, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, (represented: initially by E. Jenkinson, subsequently by C. Gibbs and V. Jackson, and, finally, by S. Hathaway, acting as Agents, and by J. Flynn QC); E.ON UK plc (Coventry, United Kingdom) (represented by P. Lomas, Solicitor); and International Power plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by D. Anderson QC, M. Chamberlain, Barrister, S. Lister and D. Harrison, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision SG-Greffe (2007) D/203626 of 18 June 2007, pursuant to Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 [EC] and 82 [EC] (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18), rejecting the applicants’ complaint concerning infringements of the ECSC Treaty (Case COMP/37.037-SWSMA).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of Mr Glen Jones and of Mrs Daphne Jones, as well as those of Fforch-Y-Garon Coal Co. Ltd.

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, E.ON UK plc and International Power plc each to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case C-491/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien (Austria)) — Criminal proceedings against Vladimir Turanský (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Article 54 — Ne bis in idem principle — Scope — Concept of finally disposed of — Decision by which a police authority orders the suspension of criminal proceedings — Decision not barring further prosecution and not having a ne bis in idem effect under national law)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/19

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien (Austria)) — Criminal proceedings against Vladimir Turanský
   (Case C-491/07) (1)

   (Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Article 54 - ‘Ne bis in idem’ principle - Scope - Concept of ‘finally disposed of’ - Decision by which a police authority orders the suspension of criminal proceedings - Decision not barring further prosecution and not having a ne bis in idem effect under national law)
   (2009/C 44/32)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien
   Defendant in the criminal proceedings
   Vladimir Turanský
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien — Interpretation of Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19) — Interpretation of ‘ne bis in idem’ principle — Scope — Decision by which a police authority terminates criminal proceedings
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:
   The ne bis in idem principle enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed in Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, does not fall to be applied to a decision by which an authority of a Contracting State, after examining the merits of the case brought before it, makes an order, at a stage before the charging of a person suspected of a crime, suspending the criminal proceedings, where the suspension decision does not, under the national law of that State, definitively bar further prosecution and therefore does not preclude new criminal proceedings, in respect of the same acts, in that State.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case T-152/07: Action brought on 7 May 2007 — Lange Uhren v OHIM (Figurative mark representing a watch)

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/35

         Action brought on 7 May 2007 — Lange Uhren v OHIM (Figurative mark representing a watch)
   (Case T-152/07)
   (2007/C 155/63)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Lange Uhren GmbH (Glashütte, Germany) (represented by M. Schaeffer, Rechtsanwalt)

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

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 15 February 2007 in Case R 1176/2005-1;

               —

               declare that the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) do not preclude publication of the Community trade mark applied for under No 2542694 for goods in class 14 (‘luxury watches and chronometric instruments; watchfaces for luxury watches’);

               —

               in the alternative, declare that the Community trade mark applied for under No 2542694 has become distinctive in respect of the goods applied for in class 14 as a result of the use which has been made of it, in accordance with Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94;

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: A figurative mark representing a watch for goods in class 14 (registration No 2542694).

      Decision of the Examiner: Application refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.
   Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94, as the mark applied for does not lack the requisite distinctive character;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94, as, due to an error in law, the mark applied for has been held not to have become distinctive as a result of the use which has been made of it.

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


title: Case T-117/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Italy v EESC and Commission (Procedural issue — Objection of inadmissibility — Partial inadmissibility of the action — Lack of imputability of acts to the Commission)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/27

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2008 — Italy v EESC and Commission
   (Case T-117/08) (1)

   (Procedural issue - Objection of inadmissibility - Partial inadmissibility of the action - Lack of imputability of acts to the Commission)
   (2009/C 55/50)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Bruni, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendants: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by M. Bermejo Garde, acting as Agent, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer) and Commission of the European Communities (represented by J. Currall, acting as Agent);

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by F. Díez Moreno, Abogado del Estado)
   Re:
   Annulment of Vacancy Notice No 73/07 concerning the post of Secretary-General (grade A* 16) to the EESC, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 28 December 2007 (OJ 2007 C 316 A, p. 1), and the corrigendum to that notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 30 January 2008 (OJ 2008 C 25 A, p. 21).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is rejected as inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Commission.

               2.

               The Italian Republic is ordered to pay, in addition to the costs it incurred in the context of the present action in so far as it is directed against the Commission, the costs incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Case C-145/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 14 March 2016 — Aramex Nederland BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane
   (Case C-145/16)
   (2016/C 200/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Aramex Nederland BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

      Question referred

   Is Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 301/2012 of 2 April 2012 (1) concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature valid?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 99, p. 19.


title: Action brought on 16 October 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-374/98)

text:
5.12.98                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 378/11
      relied on the criteria which it defined in its                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      communications of 5 June 1996 (3) and of 8 January
      1997 (4). In so doing, it applied a weighting of 4/20 in
      respect of the seriousness of the infringement and 2,5/
      3 in respect of the duration. Finally, it set a coefficient      Ð Infringement of Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 79/
      of 21,1 for factor (n) relating to France (in accordance              409/EEC: France is under an obligation to adopt
      with its communication of 8 January 1997).                            special conservation measures concerning the Basses
                                                                            CorbieÁres' and in particular to classify that area as a
                                                                            special protection area as provided in Article 4(1) and
(1 ) [1988] ECR 2243.                                                       (2) of the Wild Birds' Directive. The area provides a
(2 ) OJ L 103, 25.8.1979, p. 1.                                             habitat for several species listed in Annex I to the Wild
(3 ) OJ C 242, 21.8.1996, p. 6.                                             Birds Directive, a number of which are in danger of
(4 ) OJ C 63, 28.2.1997, p. 2.                                              extinction, are rare or require particular attention
                                                                            because of the specific nature of their habitat.
                                                                            Moreover, the area in question plays an important
                                                                            part in the migration of birds of prey. Finally, although
                                                                            the French authorities adopted an order concerning
                                                                            biotopes on the ground that one of the last two pairs
                                                                            of Bonnelli's eagles (Hieraaetus fasciatus) in the
                                                                            deÂpartement has its nesting grounds there, no special
Action brought on 16 October 1998 by the Commission                         conservation measure was adopted or planned so far
of the European Communities against the French Republic                     as concerns the other species included in Annex I to
                                                                            the Wild Birds Directive, which have their habitats in
                          (Case C-374/98)                                   the Basses CorbieÁres', or in so far as concerns
                                                                            migratory species, in particular the birds of prey which
                            (98/C 378/20)                                   frequent the area.
                                                                       Ð Infringement of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Directive
An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                            92/43/EEC: the obligations imposed by the first
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                            sentence of Article 4(4) of Directive 79/409/EEC in a
16 October 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                            special protection area must also be fulfilled where
Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
                                                                            such a zone, contrary to Article 4(1) and (2) of the
Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a national
                                                                            directive, has not yet been created (judgment in Case
civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as
                                                                            C-355/90) (3). In view of the fact that since 10 June
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                            1994, the date of transposition of Directive 92/43/
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                            EEC, the obligations under Article 6(2), (3) and (4)
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            thereof replaced those under the first sentence of
                                                                            Article 4(4) of the Wild Birds Directive, the
                                                                            Commission is of the view that the obligations of the
                                                                            Habitats' Directive were to be fulfilled with effect
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            from 10 June 1994, in the case of the Basses
                                                                            CorbieÁres' area, even if it had not yet been classified
                                                                            as a special protection area under Article 4(1) and (2)
                                                                            of the Wild Birds Directive. However, the Commission
Ð declare, first, that, by failing to classify the area of the
                                                                            considers that the implementation of a project to open
      Basses CorbieÁres' as a special protection area for the
                                                                            and operate limestone quarries within the area
      conservation of certain species of birds listed in
                                                                            concerned is a clear indication that the French
      Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1), and of
                                                                            authorities have not adopted adequate measures to
      certain migrating species not listed in Annex I, and by
                                                                            avoid disturbance of the species which have their
      also failing to adopt special conservation measures
                                                                            habitat there. The tardy attempt to show, ex post
      concerning their habitat, contrary to Article 4(1) and
                                                                            facto, that the acts authorising the installation of the
      (2) thereof, and, secondly, that, failing to take the
                                                                            industrial plant did observe the requirements of
      appropriate measures concerning              the   Basses
                                                                            Directive 92/43/EEC does not remove the infringement
      CorbieÁres' to avoid disturbance of the species under
                                                                            of that directive.
      protection in that area as well as the deterioration of
      habitats likely to have a significant effect, following
      the opening and operation of limestone quarries                  (1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
      within the communes of Tautavel and Vingrau,                         conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 25.8.1979, p. 1).
      contrary to Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of Directive               (2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
      Council 92/43/EEC (2), the French Republic has failed                conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
      to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty; and                      (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).
                                                                       (3) Case C-355/90 Commission v. Spain [1993] ECR I-4221.
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-376/09: Action brought on 22 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/51

         Action brought on 22 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Malta
   (Case C-376/09)
   2009/C 267/85
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro, E. Depasquale, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Malta

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not decommissioning non-critical uses of halons in fire protection systems and fire extinguishers on ships and by not recovering these halons, the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(4)(v) and 16 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer;

               —

               order Republic of Malta to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   It follows from the provisions of Articles 4(4)(v) and 16 of the Regulation, read in conjunction with the provisions of Article 2 of the Act of Accession, that the Republic of Malta was required to decommission fire protection systems and fire extinguishers containing halons before 1 May 2004, with the exception of the critical uses listed in Annex VII to the regulation, and to recover these halons by appropriate technologies.
   In the absence of any information to the effect that that the Republic of Malta has decommissioned non-critical uses of halons in fire protection systems and file extinguishers on all the ships listed in the form attached to its reply to the letter of formal notice and has recovered these halons, the Commission concludes that the Republic of Malta has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(4)(v) and 16 of the regulation.

      (1)  OJ L 244, p. 1


title: Case C-260/09 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 February 2011 — Activision Blizzard Germany GmbH (formerly CD-Contact Data GmbH) v European Commission (Appeal — Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Market for Nintendo video games consoles and games cartridges — Limitation of parallel exports in that market — Agreement between a manufacturer and an exclusive distributor — Distribution agreement allowing passive sales — Proof of a concurrence of wills in the absence of direct documentary evidence that passive sales were to be restricted — Standard of proof necessary to establish the existence of a vertical agreement)

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 February 2011 — Activision Blizzard Germany GmbH (formerly CD-Contact Data GmbH) v European Commission
   (Case C-260/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market for Nintendo video games consoles and games cartridges - Limitation of parallel exports in that market - Agreement between a manufacturer and an exclusive distributor - Distribution agreement allowing passive sales - Proof of a concurrence of wills in the absence of direct documentary evidence that passive sales were to be restricted - Standard of proof necessary to establish the existence of a vertical agreement)
   2011/C 103/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Activision Blizzard Germany GmbH (formerly CD-Contact Data GmbH) (represented by: J.K. de Pree and E.N.M. Raedts, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Noë and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 30 April 2009 in Case T-18/03 CD-Contact Data GmbH v Commission of the European Communities by which the Court reduced the fine imposed on the appellant and dismissed as to the remainder an action for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/675/EC of 30 October 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (COMP/35.587 PO Video Games, COMP/35.706 PO Nintendo Distribution and COMP/36.321 Omega — Nintendo) concerning a complex of agreements and concerted practices in the markets for Nintendo consoles and video games cartridges compatible with Nintendo consoles designed to restrict parallel exports of those consoles and cartridges

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Activision Blizzard Germany GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Case C-376/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Pie Optiek v Bureau Gevers, European Registry for Internet Domains (Internet — .eu Top Level Domain — Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 — Domain names — Phased registration — Article 12(2) — Concept of ‘licensees of prior rights’ — Person authorised by the proprietor of a trade mark to register, in his own name but on behalf of that proprietor, a domain name identical or similar to that trade mark — No authorisation for other uses of the sign as a trade mark)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/15

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Belgium) — Pie Optiek v Bureau Gevers, European Registry for Internet Domains
   (Case C-376/11) (1)

   (Internet - .eu Top Level Domain - Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 - Domain names - Phased registration - Article 12(2) - Concept of ‘licensees of prior rights’ - Person authorised by the proprietor of a trade mark to register, in his own name but on behalf of that proprietor, a domain name identical or similar to that trade mark - No authorisation for other uses of the sign as a trade mark)
   2012/C 295/24
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pie Optiek

      Defendants: Bureau Gevers, European Registry for Internet Domains

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel de Bruxelles — Interpretation of Articles 12(2) and 21(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the.eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration (OJ 2004 L 162, p. 40) — Interpretation of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 733/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 April 2002 on the implementation of the.eu Top Level Domain (OJ 2002 L 113, p. 1) — Speculative and abusive registrations — Concept of ‘licensees of prior rights’ — Person authorised by the proprietor of a trade mark to register, in his own name but on behalf of the licensor, a domain name identical or similar to the trade mark, in the absence of any other use of the sign as a trade mark — Name registered without ‘rights or legitimate interest’

      Operative part of the judgment

   The third subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the.eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the prior right concerned is a trade mark right, the words ‘licensees of prior rights’ do not refer to a person who has been authorised by the proprietor of the trade mark concerned solely to register, in his own name but on behalf of that proprietor, a domain name identical or similar to that trade mark, but without that person being authorised to use the trade mark commercially in a manner consistent with its functions.

      (1)  OJ C 298, 8.10.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-469/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bologna Filomeno Mario Miraglia (Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Principle ne bis in idem — Scope — Decision of a Member State's judicial authorities to discontinue prosecution by reason solely of the initiation of similar proceedings in another Member State)

text:
               28.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 132/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 10 March 2005
   in Case C-469/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bologna Filomeno Mario Miraglia (1)

   (Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Principle ne bis in idem - Scope - Decision of a Member State's judicial authorities to discontinue prosecution by reason solely of the initiation of similar proceedings in another Member State)
   (2005/C 132/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-469/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 35 EU from the Tribunale di Bologna (Italy), made by decision of 22 September 2003, received at the Court on 10 November 2003, in the in the criminal proceedings brought against Filomeno Mario Miraglia — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and P. Kūris, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The principle ne bis in idem, enshrined in Article 54 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 19 June 1990 at Schengen, does not fall to be applied to a decision of the judicial authorities of one Member State declaring a case to be closed, after the Public Prosecutor has decided not to pursue the prosecution on the sole ground that criminal proceedings have been started in another Member State against the same defendant and for the same acts, without any determination whatsoever as to the merits of the case.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2005 in Case T-138/04 Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno SpA v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment of a Commission letter determining the amount of interest for delay applicable to a fine imposed on the applicant — Meaning of a measure confirming an earlier measure — Admissibility)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/21

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 20 June 2005
   in Case T-138/04 Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno SpA v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment of a Commission letter determining the amount of interest for delay applicable to a fine imposed on the applicant - Meaning of a measure confirming an earlier measure - Admissibility)
   (2005/C 229/46)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-138/04: Cementir — Cementerie del Tirreno SpA, established in Rome (Italy), represented by D. Fosselard and P. Fattori, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and V. Di Bucci) — Application for the annulment of the Commission's letter of 28 January 2004 determining the amount of interest for delay applicable to a fine imposed on the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 20 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118 of 30. 4. 2004