title: Case T-269/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Xeda International v Commission (Application for interim measures — Plant protection products — Active substance ethoxyquin — Non-inclusion of ethoxyquin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing ethoxyquin — Application to suspend the operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/52

      Order of the President of the General Court of 15 November 2011 — Xeda International v Commission
      (Case T-269/11 R)
      (Application for interim measures - Plant protection products - Active substance ethoxyquin - Non-inclusion of ethoxyquin in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing ethoxyquin - Application to suspend the operation of a measure - Lack of urgency)
      (2012/C 25/102)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Xeda International SA (Saint-Andiol, France) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, G. von Rintelen and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision 2011/143/EU of 3 March 2011 concerning the non-inclusion of ethoxyquin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and amending Commission Decision 2008/941/EC (OJ 2011 L 59, p. 71) and, if necessary, other interim measures.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application for interim measures is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-34/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2013 — Idromacchine Srl, Alessandro Capuzzo, Roberto Capuzzo v European Commission (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the European Union — Action for damages — Commission decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure — Prejudicial statements — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/38

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 September 2013 — Idromacchine Srl, Alessandro Capuzzo, Roberto Capuzzo v European Commission
   (Case C-34/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the European Union - Action for damages - Commission decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure - Prejudicial statements - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2013/C 344/65
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellants: Idromacchine SpA, Alessandro Capuzzo, Roberto Capuzzo (represented by: W. Viscardini and G. Donà, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, acting as Agent, assisted by F. Ruggeri Laderchi, avvocato)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2011 in Case T-88/09 Idromacchine and Others v Commission, by which the General Court rejected in part an action for damages in respect of the harm allegedly suffered as the result of the publication in the Official Journal of the European Union of false information which, inter alia, adversely affected the image and reputation of Idromacchine in Commission Decision C(2002) 5426 final of 30 December 2004, ‘State aid — Italy — Extension of the 3-year delivery limit for a chemical tanker — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) [EC]’ — Duty of care — Breach of the rights of the defence — Absence of grounds

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Idromacchine SpA, Alessandro Capuzzo and Roberto Capuzzo shall jointly and severally pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case C-554/15: Order of the President of the Court of 26 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria — Spain) — Luca Jerónimo García Almodóvar, Catalina Molina Moreno v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, SAU

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 January 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Cantabria — Spain) — Luca Jerónimo García Almodóvar, Catalina Molina Moreno v Banco de Caja España de Inversiones, Salamanca y Soria, SAU
   (Case C-554/15) (1)

   (2017/C 129/16)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 July 2003 in Case T-175/03: Norbert Schmitt v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (Member of the temporary staff — Termination of contract — Article 47(2)(a) of the CEOS — Observance of the provisions of the contract — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/22

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 7 July 2003
   in Case T-175/03: Norbert Schmitt v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (1)

   (Member of the temporary staff - Termination of contract - Article 47(2)(a) of the CEOS - Observance of the provisions of the contract - Legitimate expectations)
   (2004/C 239/46)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-175/03: Norbert Schmitt, formerly of the temporary staff of the European Agency for Reconstruction, residing in Koellerbach (Germany), represented by L. Polanz, lawyer, against European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (Agent: C. Manolopoulos, assisted by J.-N. Louis, lawyer) — application for the annulment of the decision of the EAR terminating the applicant's contract and, in the alternative, an application for damages — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tilli and M. Vilaras, judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, delivered a judgment on 7 July 2004 in which it:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) of 25 February 2003 terminating the applicant's contract;

               2.

               orders the EAR to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ 2003 C 184.


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) 15 January 2004 in Case C-235/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice per le indagini preliminari of the Tribunale di Gela): in the criminal proceedings against Mario Antonio Saetti and Andrea Frediani,

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/13

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   15 January 2004
   in Case C-235/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice per le indagini preliminari of the Tribunale di Gela): in the criminal proceedings against Mario Antonio Saetti and Andrea Frediani (1),
   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Waste management - Definition of ‘waste’ - Petroleum coke)
   (2004/C 94/25)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-235/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Giudice per le indagini preliminari of the Tribunale di Gela (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against Mario Antonio Saetti and Andrea Frediani, on the interpretation of Articles 1(a) and (f), 2(1)(b) and 4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting as President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 15 January 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Petroleum coke which is produced intentionally or in the course of producing other petroleum fuels in an oil refinery and is certain to be used as fuel to meet the energy needs of the refinery and those of other industries does not constitute waste within the meaning of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  1 December 2005  in Case C-301/03: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Structural funds — Eligibility of expenditure — Amendments to programme complements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 1 December 2005
   in Case C-301/03: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Structural funds - Eligibility of expenditure - Amendments to programme complements - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 36/06)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-301/03: Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Aiello and A. Cingolo, avvocati dello Stato) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. de March and L. Flynn, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, avvocato), ACTION for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 2 July 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 December 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.9.2003.


title: Case C-156/10 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — Karen Goncharov v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), DSB (Appeals — Community trade mark — Marks consisting of acronyms — Earlier trade mark DSB — Word sign ‘DSBW’ — Opposition proceedings — Relative ground for refusal — Examination of the likelihood of confusion — Visual similarity — Aural similarity — Inadmissibility — Assessment of the facts)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/3

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 December 2010 — Karen Goncharov v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), DSB
   (Case C-156/10 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Community trade mark - Marks consisting of acronyms - Earlier trade mark DSB - Word sign ‘DSBW’ - Opposition proceedings - Relative ground for refusal - Examination of the likelihood of confusion - Visual similarity - Aural similarity - Inadmissibility - Assessment of the facts)
   2011/C 89/04
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Karen Goncharov (represented by: A. Späth, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Schmidt, acting as Agent), DSB (represented by: T. Graf, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 January 2010 in Case T-34/07 Goncharov v OHIM — DSB (DSBW) by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 December 2006, which refused registration of the word sign ‘DSBW’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Classes 39, 41 and 43 and upheld the opposition of the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘DSB’ — Likelihood of confusion — Account not taken, during the examination of the likelihood of confusion, of the particularities of marks consisting of acronyms — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Goncharov is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-59/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Scope — Misleading information circulated by a health insurance fund which is part of the statutory social security system — Fund established as a public law body)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/20

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV
   (Case C-59/12) (1)

   (Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Scope - Misleading information circulated by a health insurance fund which is part of the statutory social security system - Fund established as a public law body)
   2013/C 344/34
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BKK Mobil Oil Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts

      Defendant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) in conjunction with Article 2(d) of the same directive — Scope — ‘Commercial practices’ and ‘trader’ — Advertisements of a statutory health insurance fund containing misleading information in relation to the drawbacks flowing from a potential change of health insurance fund for its clients.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), must be interpreted to the effect that a public law body charged with a task of public interest, such as the management of a statutory health insurance fund, falls within the persons covered by the directive.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012.


title: Case T-366/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 29 August 2013 — France v Commission (Interim relief — State aid — Aid implemented in favour of companies responsible for the public service of providing maritime transport services between Corsica and Marseille — Compensation paid in respect of additional services provided to cover peak periods during the tourist season — Decision classifying that aid as incompatible with the internal market and ordering the recovery of that aid from the recipients — Application for stay of execution — No urgency)

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/7

         Order of the President of the General Court of 29 August 2013 — France v Commission
   (Case T-366/13 R)
   (Interim relief - State aid - Aid implemented in favour of companies responsible for the public service of providing maritime transport services between Corsica and Marseille - Compensation paid in respect of additional services provided to cover peak periods during the tourist season - Decision classifying that aid as incompatible with the internal market and ordering the recovery of that aid from the recipients - Application for stay of execution - No urgency)
   2013/C 298/11
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, N. Rouam, G. de Bergues and D. Colas, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Afonso and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for stay of execution of Decision C(2013) 1926 final of the European Commission of 2 May 2013 on State aid No SA.22843 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of the Société nationale Corse Méditerranée and the Compagnie méridionale de navigation.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is rejected.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-547/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 March 2013 — Swiss Confederation v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Landkreis Waldshut (Appeal — External relations — Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Access of Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes — Articles 8 and 9 — Scope — Exercise of traffic rights — Decision 2004/12/EC — German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich Airport — Duty to state reasons — Non-discrimination — Proportionality — Burden of proof)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 7 March 2013 — Swiss Confederation v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany, Landkreis Waldshut
   (Case C-547/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - External relations - Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport - Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 - Access of Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes - Articles 8 and 9 - Scope - Exercise of traffic rights - Decision 2004/12/EC - German measures relating to the approaches to Zurich Airport - Duty to state reasons - Non-discrimination - Proportionality - Burden of proof)
   2013/C 123/02
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Swiss Confederation (represented by: S. Hirsbrunner, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. van Rijn, K. Simonsson and K. P. Wojcik, Agents); Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze, Agent, assisted by T. Masing, Rechtsanwalt); Landkreis Waldshut, (represented by M. Núñez Müller, Rechtsanwalt)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fifth Chamber) on 9 September 2010 in Case T-319/05 Switzerland v Commission by which that court dismissed the action brought by the Swiss Confederation for the annulment of Commission Decision 2004/12/EC of 5 December 2003 on a procedure relating to the application of Article 18(2), first sentence, of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on air transport and Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (OJ 1993 L 15, p. 33) — Measures adopted by Germany relating to the approaches to Zurich airport — Wrongful assessment of the applicability of Article 9(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 to the contested measures — Misinterpretation of the scope of the Commission’s obligation to state reasons — Failure to take account of the rights of the airport operator and the people living around the airport — Infringement of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders the Swiss Confederation to bear, in addition to its own costs, all of the costs incurred by the European Commission both at first instance and on appeal.

               3.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and Landkreis Waldshut to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 September 2012 in Case E-18/11 — Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Kaupthing Bank hf. (Article 34 SCA — Appeal against a decision making a request for an Advisory Opinion — Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions — Directive 2001/24/EC — Conform interpretation)

text:
               31.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 29/6

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 28 September 2012
   in Case E-18/11
   Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Kaupthing Bank hf.
   (Article 34 SCA — Appeal against a decision making a request for an Advisory Opinion — Reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions — Directive 2001/24/EC — Conform interpretation)
   2013/C 29/07
   In Case E-18/11 Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v Kaupthing Bank hf. — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavik District Court) concerning the interpretation of Article 14 of Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President (Judge-Rapporteur), Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 28 September 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               In the case of discrepancy between different language versions, the version which reflects the purpose and the general scheme of the rules provided for by the Directive, as well as the general principles of EEA law must be deemed to express the meaning of an EEA law provision.

               2.

               Article 14 of Directive 2001/24/EC of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions precludes a rule of national law which, following the publication of an invitation to lodge claims directed towards known creditors who have their domicile, permanent residence or head offices in other EEA States, allows for the cancellation of claims that have not been lodged even if these creditors have not been individually notified and the national legislation requires the lodgement of the claim with a view to its recognition.

               3.

               While the EEA Agreement does not require that a provision of a directive that has been made part of the EEA Agreement is directly applicable and takes precedence over a national rule that fails to transpose the relevant EEA rule correctly into national law, the national court is obliged, as far as possible, to ensure the result sought by the directive at issue through the conform interpretation of the national law with the EEA law provision.


title: Case T-466/13: Order of the General Court of 5 February 2014  — Hermann Trollius v ECHA

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/55

         Order of the General Court of 5 February 2014 — Hermann Trollius v ECHA
   (Case T-466/13) (1)

   2014/C 142/73
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case F-6/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Blias v ECB (Staff case — ECB staff — Remuneration — Expatriation allowance — Conditions set out in Article 17 of the ECB conditions of employment — Applicant ordered to pay the costs — Requirements of fairness — Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/37

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 December 2008 — Blias v ECB
   (Case F-6/08) (1)

   (Staff case - ECB staff - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance - Conditions set out in Article 17 of the ECB conditions of employment - Applicant ordered to pay the costs - Requirements of fairness - Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure)
   (2009/C 19/73)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Jessica Blias (Frankfurt on Main, Germany) (represented by: B. Karthaus, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Malfrère and F. Feyerbacher, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Re:
   Staff cases — Annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 15 August 2007 refusing to grant the applicant entitlement to the expatriation allowance on the ground that she does not fulfil the conditions set out in Article 17 of the Conditions of Employment of the ECB.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Blias to pay, in addition to her own costs, half the costs of the European Central Bank;

               3.

               Orders the European Central Bank to pay half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008, p. 39.


title: Case T-189/16: Action brought on 27 April 2016 – Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund v EUIPO – Luigi Lavazza (CReMESPRESSO)

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/24

         Action brought on 27 April 2016 – Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund v EUIPO – Luigi Lavazza (CReMESPRESSO)
   (Case T-189/16)
   (2016/C 232/32)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Migros-Genossenschafts-Bund (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Luigi Lavazza SpA (Torino, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘CReMESPRESSO’ – EU trade mark No 8 919 541

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 in Case R 2823/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision as far as it allows the CTM proprietor’s appeal and annuls the decision of the EUIPO of 24 October 2014 in part, namely for ‘ice cream makers, ice cream machines, and coffee machines’ in Class 11, and ‘electric ice crushers’ in Class 7;

               —

               order the Respondent and Intervener to pay the costs of this Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(1)(a) of CTMR.


title: Case C-66/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 February 2014  — Finanzamt Linz v Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 February 2014 — Finanzamt Linz v Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz
   (Case C-66/14)
   2014/C 142/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Linz

      Defendant authority: Bundesfinanzgericht, Außenstelle Linz

      Parties concerned: IFN-Holding AG, IFN Beteiligungs GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 107 TFEU (ex Article 87 EC), in conjunction with Article 108(3) TFEU (ex Article 88(3) EC), preclude a national measure under which, in the context of group taxation, goodwill is to be amortised in the case where a holding is acquired in a domestic company — thereby reducing the basis of assessment for tax purposes, and hence the tax burden — whereas such amortisation of goodwill on acquisition of a holding is not permissible in other cases of income and corporation tax?

               2.

               Does Article 49 TFEU (ex Article 43 EC), in conjunction with Article 54 TFEU (ex Article 48 EC), preclude legal provisions of a Member State under which, in the context of group taxation, goodwill is to be amortised in the case where a holding is acquired in a domestic company, whereas such amortisation of goodwill may not be carried out in regard to acquisition of a holding in a non-resident corporation (in particular, a corporation established in another EU Member State)?


title: Case C-22/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 17 January 2011 — Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy
   (Case C-22/11)
   2011/C 80/30
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finnair Oyj

      Defendant: Timy Lassooy

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Regulation No 261/2004 (1) and in particular Article 4 thereof to be interpreted as meaning that its application is limited only to cases of denied boarding which are caused by overbooking by the air carrier for economic reasons, or is the regulation applicable also to situations in which boarding is denied for other reasons, such as operational reasons?

               2.

               Is Article 2(j) of the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the reasonable grounds laid down therein are limited only to factors relating to passengers, or may denied boarding be reasonable on other grounds? If the regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that denied boarding may be reasonable on grounds other than those relating to passengers, is it to be interpreted as meaning that denied boarding may also be reasonable on the grounds of the rescheduling of flights as a result of the extraordinary circumstances mentioned in recitals 14 and 15?

               3.

               Is the regulation to be interpreted as meaning that an air carrier may be exempted from liability under Article 5(3) in extraordinary circumstances not only with respect to a flight which it cancelled, but also with respect to passengers on later flights, on the ground that by its actions it attempted to spread the negative effects of the extraordinary circumstances it encountered in its operations, such as a strike, among a wider class of passengers than the cancelled flight’s passengers by rescheduling its later flights so that no passenger’s journey was unreasonably delayed? In other words, may an air carrier rely on extraordinary circumstances also with respect to a passenger on a later flight whose journey was not directly affected by that factor? Does it make a significant difference whether the passenger’s situation and right to compensation are assessed in accordance with Article 4 on denied boarding or with Article 5 on flight cancellation?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case T-388/00: Action brought on 30 December 2000 by the Institut für Lernsysteme against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
10.3.2001             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 79/25
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Proprietor of the right to    The applicant
                                                                        the trade mark or sign
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those              asserted by way of oppo-
relied upon in Case T-379/00.                                           sition in the opposition
                                                                        proceedings:
                                                                        Trade mark or sign            Registered German figurative
                                                                        asserted by way of oppo-      mark ‘ILS’ for ‘educational and
                                                                        sition in the opposition      teaching material (except for
                                                                        proceedings:                  apparatus) in the form of printed
                                                                                materials; data carriers of all kind
Action brought on 30 December 2000 by the Institut für                                                with programmes for educational
Lernsysteme against the Office for Harmonisation in the                                               purposes; development and run-
                        Internal Market                                                               ning of correspondence courses’
                                                                                in Classes 9, 16 and 41
                        (Case T-388/00)
                                                                        Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                        sition Division:
                         (2001/C 79/44)
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Rejection of the opposition
                                                                        Appeal:
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        Grounds of claim:             — infringement of essential for-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                            mal provisions, e.g. Article 43
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                              (1) of Council Regulation on
European Communities on 30 December 2000 by the Institut                                                  the Community Trade Mark
für Lernsysteme, Hamburg, represented by Jörg Schneider                                               — misapplication of the prin-
of CMS Hasche Sigle Eschenlohr Peltzer Schäfer, Stuttgart                                                 ciple that the closer the goods
(Germany).                                                                                and services are to one anoth-
                                                                                er, the greater the distance the
A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal                                             marks must observe from one
was ELS Educational Services, Inc., Culver City, California,                                              another
United States.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Office dated 18.10.2000
      — R 074/2000-3 and reject the registration of the
      Community trade mark 000131276 ‘ELS’;
                                                                        Action brought on 5 January 2001 by Renco S.A. against
—     order the Office to bear the costs.                                             the Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case T-4/01)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2001/C 79/45)
Applicant for the Com-        ELS Educational Services, Inc.
munity trade mark:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The trade mark con-           The verbal mark ‘ELS’ — appli-
cerned:                       cation 131276, relating to ‘edu-
                              cational textbooks and printed            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                              materials, namely student work-           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                              books, catalogs, teaching man-            Communities on 5 January 2001 by Renco S.A., established in
                              uals, printed instruction materials       Milan (Italy), represented by Denis Philippe, of the Luxembourg
                              and charts and booklets designed          Bar, and Francesco Apruzzi, of the Brussels Bar.
                              for students seeking to learn
                              English as a second language’ in          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                              Class 16; ‘rendering technical
                              assistance in connection with the         —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensation
                              establishment and/or operation of               totalling 6 863 000 euro, together with compensatory
                              language schools’ in Class 35 and               interest with effect from the date of the event giving rise
                              ‘educational services, namely pro-              to the damage — namely, 14 April 2000 — and legal
                              viding English language instruc-                interest from the date of delivery of the judgment,
                              tion’ in Class 41                               composed of:


title: Case T-340/09: Action brought on 19 August 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Publications Office of the European Union

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/73

         Action brought on 19 August 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Publications Office of the European Union
   (Case T-340/09)
   2009/C 267/133
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athènes, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Publications Office of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the OPOCE’s decision to reject the bids of the applicant, filed in response to the open call for tenders No 10017 “CORDIS” Lot B “Editorial and Publishing Services” and Lot C “Provision of New Digital Information Services” and to select the bid of the applicant filed in response to the open call for tenders No 10017 “CORDIS” Lot E “Development and Maintenance of Core Services”, for the award of the above procurement contract as third contractor in the cascade mechanism (OJ 2008/S 242-321376 as amended by OJ 2009/S 40-057377), communicated to the applicant by a letter dated 9 June 2009 and all further related decisions of the OPOCE including the one to award the respective contracts to the successful contractors;

               —

               order the OPOCE to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 7 215 405 (EUR 5 291 935 for Lot B, EUR 975 000 for Lot C and EUR 948 470 for Lot E);

               —

               order the OPOCE to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of this application the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of OPOCE to: a) reject the bids of the applicant, filed in response to the open call for tenders No 10017 “CORDIS” Lot B “Editorial and Publishing Services” and Lot C “Provision of New Digital Information Services”, b) select the bid of the applicant filed in response to the open call for tenders No 10017 “CORDIS” Lot E “Development and Maintenance of Core Services”, for the award of the above procurement contract as third contractor in the cascade mechanism (OJ 2008/S 242-321376 as amended by OJ 2009/S 40-057377).
   The applicant claims, first, concerning Lot B, that the treatment between tenderers was discriminatory, since one of the members of the winning consortium did not comply with the exclusion criteria and should, accordingly, have been found to be in serious breach of its contractual obligations towards the Commission. Moreover, the applicant claims that Articles 93(1)(f) and 94 of the Financial Regulation (1) and the principle of good administration have been infringed by the contracting authority and that the Commission should have imposed sanctions provided for by Article 96 of the Financial Regulation and Articles 133a and 134b of its Implementing Rules (2).
   Second, the applicant claims that the contracting authority has failed to disclose the relative merits of the successful tenderer.
   Third, the applicant submits that the Commission has made several manifest errors of assessment while evaluating its tender and submits that it has infringed the principle of equal treatment while introducing new award criteria not specified in the Tender Specifications (“TS”). Furthermore, the applicant contends that the contracting authority infringed Article 148(1) and (3) of the Implementing Rules, as well as the principle of good administration.
   Concerning Lot C, the applicant submits that the treatment between tenderers was discriminatory since one of the members of the third in the cascade mechanism consortium did not comply with the exclusion criteria and should have been found to be in serious breach of previous contracts. Secondly, the applicant claims that the contracting authority has failed to disclose the relative merits of the successful tenderer and has infringed the Principle of good administration.
   Concerning Lot E, the applicant argues that one of the members of the winning consortium did not comply with the exclusion criteria because it should have been declared in serious breach of a previous contract and that another one of the members of the same consortium should have been excluded from all tenders for two years because it was found guilty for illegal activities. Moreover, the applicant contends that one of the members of the winning consortium uses non WTO/GPA (3) contractors, infringing the TS of the call for tenders, the principles of transparency and of non discrimination, as well as Articles 106 and 107 of the Financial Regulation. The applicant contends that non WTO/GPA member companies should neither be allowed, nor participate to European Institutions’ Call for tenders directly or indirectly, nor undertake as a subcontractor any work falling under the Financial Regulation or Directive 2004/18/EC (4).
   Finally, the applicant claims that the contracting authority failed to state reasons conducted several manifest errors of assessment, introduced new award criteria not specified in the TS and infringed while evaluating its tender and that of another tenderer the principle of equal treatment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC,Euratom) No 478/2007 of 23 April 2007 (OJ 2007 L 111, p. 13)

      (3)  Multilateral Agreement on Government Procurement concluded within the World Trade Organisation

      (4)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)


title: Case F-97/14: Action brought on 22 September 2014  — ZZ v EMA

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/50

         Action brought on 22 September 2014 — ZZ v EMA
   (Case F-97/14)
   (2015/C 007/59)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the EMA’s decision, confirming the earlier decision annulled by judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal, not to renew the applicant’s contract.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted pursuant to the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 June 2013 in joined cases F-135/11, F-51/12 and F-110/12;

               —

               order the EMA to pay EUR 1 50  000 to the applicant by way of compensation for non-material harm suffered;

               —

               order the EMA to pay EUR 1 to the applicant provisionally by way of compensation for material harm caused;

               —

               order the EMA to pay the costs.


title: Case T-50/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Saint-Gobain Gyproc Belgium v Commission (Competition — Cartels — Plasterboard market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fine — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/40

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2008 — Saint-Gobain Gyproc Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-50/03) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - Plasterboard market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fine - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)
   (2008/C 209/67)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Saint-Gobain Gyproc Belgium NV, previously BPB Belgium NV, previously Gyproc Benelux NV (Beveren-Kallo, Belgium) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, P. L'Ecluse and M. Favart, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Ingen-Housz and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Arbault, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action under Articles 229 EC and 230 EC for the reduction of the fine imposed on Gyproc by Commission Decision 2005/471/EC of 27 November 2002 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] against BPB plc, Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Société Lafarge SA and Gyproc Benelux NV (Case No COMP/E-1/37.152 — Plasterboard) (OJ 2005 L 166, p. 8)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Saint-Gobain Gyproc Belgium NV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.


title: Case F-3/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Refusal of an institution to translate a decision — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law — Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/64

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-3/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Refusal of an institution to translate a decision - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law - Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure)
   2009/C 282/122
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision not to translate a note into the language chosen by the applicant — Application for damages.

      Operative part of the order

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses Mr Marcuccio’s action as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               orders Mr Marcuccio to pay the costs.

               3.

               orders Mr Marcuccio to pay to the Tribunal the sum of EUR 1 000

      (1)  OJ C 64 of 08.03.2008, p. 68


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-448/99: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 97/13/EC)

text:
C 150/6                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          19.5.2001
3.    The implementation of a general exemption from value added            —     time which a driver necessarily spends travelling to take over a
      tax for the supply of premises and other facilities and for the             vehicle subject to the obligation to instal and use a tachograph
      related supply of accessories or other arrangements for the                 and which is not at the driver’s home or the employer’s
      purposes of the practice of sport or physical education, where no           operational centre, regardless of whether the employer gave
      such exemption is to be found in Article 13 of Directive                    instructions as to when and how to travel or whether that choice
      77/388, constitutes a serious breach of Community law that                  was left to the driver;
      can render a Member State liable in damages.
                                                                            —     periods of driving spent by a driver whilst performing a
                                                                                transport service falling outside the scope of Regulation
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.07.1999.                                                        No 3821/85 before taking over a vehicle to which that
                                                                                regulation applies.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 18 January 2001                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-297/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                              (Fifth Chamber)
the Nottingham Magistrates’ Court): criminal proceedings
against Skills Motor Coaches Ltd, B.J. Farmer, C.J. Burley                                           of 18 January 2001
                         and B. Denman (1)
                                                                            in Case C-448/99: Commission of the European Communi-
(Social legislation relating to road transport — Tachograph                              ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
record sheets — Obligation to record periods of work, breaks
                     in work and rest periods)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
                                                                                97/13/EC)
                          (2001/C 150/10)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/11)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-297/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Nottingham
Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling
in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Skills Motor Coaches Ltd, B.J. Farmer, C.J. Burley and                                          in the European Court Reports)
B. Denman — on the interpretation of Article 15 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on                          In Case C-448/99: Commission of the European Communities
recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8)                 (Agent: M. Nolin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                    P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann               bring into force all of the laws, regulations and administrative
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate                     provisions necessary to comply with Articles 8(3) and 9(2) of
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the                     Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 January 2001, in which                Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for
it has ruled:                                                               general authorisations and individual licences in the field of
                                                                            telecommunications services (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15), the
                                                                            Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            under that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
On a proper construction of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC)          of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in                    D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges;
road transport, a driver’s obligation to record all other periods of        P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
work extends to:                                                            judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 19.5.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 150/7
1.      Declares that, by failing to bring into force all of the laws,      1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply               period the national measures transposing Articles 4(2), 6(1),
      with Articles 8(3) and 9(2) of Directive 97/13/EC of the                    (3) and (4), 7, 8(2), (3), (4) and (6), 11(2) and 12 of
      European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on                  Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      a common framework for general authorisations and individual                Council of 15 December 1997 concerning the processing of
      licences in the field of telecommunications services, the Grand             personal data and the protection of privacy in the telecommuni-
      Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under              cations sector, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      that directive;                                                             obligations under Article 15 of that directive;
2.     Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to bear the costs.              2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 192 of 8.07.2000.
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.02.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           (Fourth Chamber)                                                         of 25 January 2001
                          of 18 January 2001                                in Case C-429/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic (1)
in Case C-151/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                       ties v French Republic (1)                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — VAT
                                                                            — Eighth Directive — Refund of VAT paid in another
                                                                            Member State — Sixth Directive — Place of supply —
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      Services relating to the collection, sorting, transport and
Directive 97/66/EC — Processing of personal data and                                                  disposal of waste)
protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector —
                           Non-transposition)
                                                                                (2001/C 150/13)
                            (2001/C 150/12)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                          In Case C-429/97: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            (Agents: H. Michard and E. Traversa) v French Republic
                                                                            (Agents: initially by K. Rispal-Bellanger and G. Mignot, then by
In Case C-151/00: Commission of the European Communities                    K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam,) — application for a declar-
(Agent: B. Mongin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-                    ation that, by refusing to refund value added tax to taxable
Bellanger and A. Lercher) — application for a declaration that,             persons not established in France, in cases where those taxable
by failing to bring into force and to communicate to the                    persons had subcontracted part of their work to a taxable
Commission within the prescribed period the national                        person established in France, the French Republic has failed
measures transposing Articles 4(2), 6(1), (3) and (4), 7, 8(2),             to fulfil its obligations under the Eighth Council Directive
(3), (4) and (6), 11(2) and 12 of Directive 97/66/EC of the                 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of
European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997                  the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
concerning the processing of personal data and the protection               Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable
of privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ 1998 L 24,                  persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ
p. 1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations             1979 L 331, p. 11), in particular Article 2 thereof — the Court
under Article 15 of that directive — the Court (Fourth                      (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the                      Chamber, V. Skouris (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;                N. Fennelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 January 2001, in
judgment on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                   which it:


title: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2000 in Case C-182/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Brescia): Palazzo Piacentini Srl v Amministrazione Finanzaria dello Stato (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly identical question)

text:
C 79/8                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           10.3.2001
1.    The appeal is dismissed.                                                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
2.    J is to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
(1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.                                                                            of 5 October 2000
                                                                            in Case C-182/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            from the Tribunale di Brescia): Palazzo Piacentini Srl v
                                                                                Amministrazione Finanzaria dello Stato (1)
                                                                            (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                               identical question)
                           (Third Chamber)                                                              (2001/C 79/15)
                         of 5 October 2000
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-363/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling by
the Tribunale di Catania): ISFA SpA v Ministero delle
                               Finanze (1)
                                                                            In Case C-182/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunale di
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly                      Brescia (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                          identical question)                               pending before that court between Palazzo Piacentini Srl and
                                                                            Amministrazione Finanzaria dello Stato on the interpretation
                                                                            of Community law concerning the recovery of sums paid but
                             (2001/C 79/14)                                 not due — the Court, composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                            President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet
                                                                            (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 October
                                                                            2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
In Case C-363/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunale di Catania              1.    Community law does not prevent a Member State from resisting
(District Court, Catania) (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the                 actions for repayment of charges levied in breach of Community
proceedings pending before that court between ISFA SpA and                        law by relying on a three-year time-limit under national law
Ministero delle Finanze — on the interpretation of Community                      which derogates from the ordinary rules governing actions for
law concerning the recovery of sums paid but not due — the                        the recovery of sums paid but not due between private
Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almei-                       individuals, the latter actions being subject to a more favourable
da, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-P. Puissochet                     time-limit, provided that the time-limit in question applies in
(Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-                       the same way to actions for recovery of such charges which are
eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5 October                         based on Community law as to actions based on domestic law.
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                            2.    In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings,
                                                                                Community law does not prevent a Member State from resisting
In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Community
law does not prevent a Member State from resisting actions for                    actions for repayment of charges levied in breach of a directive
repayment of charges levied in breach of a directive by relying on a              by relying on a time-limit under national law which is reckoned
                                                                                from the date of payment of the charges in question, even if, at
time-limit under national law which is reckoned from the date of
payment of the charges in question, even if, at that date, the directive          that date, the directive concerned had not yet been properly
concerned had not yet been properly transposed into national law.                 transposed into national law.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
(1) OJ C 9 of 11.1.1997.


title: Case C-69/99: Action brought on 26 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
C 136/8                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     15.5.1999
3. If Question 1 is answered in the negative or Question 2 in          Pleas in law and main arguments
    the affirmative:
    Is Article 203(1) of the Customs Code to be construed as           Article 4(1) of the Directive imposes two obligations. Firstly,
    meaning that there is a removal from customs supervision           Member States must propose a list of sites designated as special
    where the non-Community goods declared for release into            areas of conservation and, secondly, they must transmit this
    free circulation are removed from the prescribed place of          list to the Commission, together with the relevant information
    storage/examination and consequently from the local area           on these sites.
    for which the customs office in question is responsible,
    even though the customs office had ordered a customs               The Commission submits that Ireland has proposed no site in
    examination?                                                       respect of 26 of the habitat types of Annex I of the Directive
                                                                       and 20 of Annex II in Ireland. In particular, Ireland has
4. If Question 3 is answered in the negative:                          proposed no sites for certain priority habitat types and species
    Is Article 204(1) of the Customs Code to be construed as           which have a significant presence on Ireland’s territory.
    meaning that the unauthorised removal of the goods from
    their place of storage has had ‘no significant effect’ on the      The Commission also draws attention to the fact that, for
    correct operation of the temporary storage if, after their         some habitat types and species, the competent Irish authority
    removal, the goods could, on request, have been presented          has communicated an intention of not proposing any site. The
    at another customs office?                                         Commission considers that such an exclusion from site
                                                                       proposal of natural habitat types and species is contrary to the
5. Can there be no question of a customs debt on importation           requirements of Article 4(1) of the Directive.
    being incurred
    (a) under Article 201(1)(a), in conjunction with Article           Secondly, the Commission concludes that, in the case of
        201(2), of the Customs Code, where the customs                 certain habitat types and species habitats, the number of sites
        declaration is simply accepted by the customs office,          definitively proposed by Ireland is manifestly insufficient in
        or                                                             the light of the criteria listed in Annex III and in view of the
                                                                       conservation objective pursued by the Directive. The natural
    (b) under Article 203(1) of the Customs Code, or                   importance of such habitats requires both that a larger number
                                                                       of sites be proposed and that the distribution of these sites be
    (c) under Article 204 of the Customs Code,
                                                                       more evenly balanced over the national territory as a whole.
        if formally unobjectionable certificates of origin corres-
        ponding to Form A were attached to the customs
        declaration accepted by the customs office and the             (1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
        preferential tariff rate ‘free’ applied to the goods
        covered by the declaration?
                                                                       Action brought on 26 February 1999 by the Commission
Action brought on 25 February 1999 by the Commission                   of the European Communities against the United
       of the European Communities against Ireland                                                  Kingdom
                         (Case C-67/99)
                                                                                (Case C-69/99)
                        (1999/C 136/12)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/13)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 25 February 1999 by             An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 February
by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser, and Mr              1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Paolo Stancanelli, member of the Legal Service, acting as              represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal
agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office        Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service in
of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service            Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
of the Commission, Centre Wagner.                                      member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre
                                                                       Wagner.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that, by failing to transmit to the Commission the           The Applicant claims that the Court should:
    full list of sites mentioned in the first subparagraph of
    Article 4(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC (1) of 21 May          — declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
    1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild                to comply with its obligations under Article 3(1) and (2),
    fauna and flora, together with the information on each site             and under Article 5 of Council Directive 91/676/EEC (1) of
    required by the second paragraph of Article 4(1) of the                 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
    said Directive, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations            against pollution of nitrates from agricultural sources, the
    under the Directive;                                                    United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            that Directive and under the Treaty establishing the
— order Ireland to bear the costs.                                          European Community;
 ---pagebreak--- 15.5.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 136/9
— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The differences in the amounts payable by way of the passenger
                                                                        services tax and insurance tax at issue must be considered in
                                                                        the light of Community law, in particular of the provisions of
According to Article 3(1), waters affected by pollution and
                                                                        Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 and of the principle of freedom
waters which could be affected by pollution if action pursuant
                                                                        to provide services enshrined in the Treaty and in particular in
to Article 5 of the Directive is not taken, shall be identified by
                                                                        Article 59 thereof. From the point of view of the single market,
the Member States in accordance with the criteria set out in
                                                                        that freedom under Article 59 precludes the application of any
Annexe I.
                                                                        legislation which has as its effect to make it more difficult to
                                                                        provide services between Member States than to provide
It appears that only surface waters intended for the abstraction        services exclusively within one Member State (see Case
of drinking water were identified in accordance with Article            C-288/89 Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda v Com-
3(1), whilst the Directive requires that surface freshwaters not        missariaat voor de Media 1991 ECR I-4007). The applicant
intended or used for the abstraction of drinking water, which           claims that it is clear, not only in terms of Regulation (EEC)
contain or could contain excessive concentrations of nitrates,          No 2408/92 but also of Article 7a of the EC Treaty and its
must be identified.                                                     express reference to Article 84, which is the legal basis for the
                                                                        Regulation, that freedom to provide air transport services
It also appears that only groundwaters’ sources were identified         within the Community is an integral part of such a single
in accordance with Article 3(1), whilst the Directive requires          market. Article 59 has primacy over the application of national
that all groundwaters which contain more than 50 mg/l                   legislation, unless the latter is justified on grounds of overriding
nitrates or could contain more than 50 mg/l nitrates if action          reasons relating to the public interest and does not go beyond
pursuant to Article 5 is not taken, must be identified.                 that which is necessary in order to achieve the objective
                                                                        pursued. In the Commission’s view, the justifications claimed
                                                                        by the Portuguese authorities for the measures under consider-
(1) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991, p. 1.                                         ation do not fulfil any of the above conditions.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.
Action brought on 26 February 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                             Republic
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesverga-
                          (Case C-70/99)                                beamt Tirol by order of that tribunal of 17 February 1999
                                                                        in the case of Ortner GmbH v Innsbrucker Kommunal-
                         (1999/C 136/14)                                                            betriebe AG
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                                             (Case C-72/99)
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser,                                         (1999/C 136/15)
and Francisco de Sousa Fialho, of its Legal Service, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner               European Communities by an order of the Landesvergabeamt
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                      Tirol (Procurement Office of the Land of Tyrol), Austria, of
                                                                        17 February 1999, which was received at the Court Registry
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             on 2 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Ortner GmbH v Innsbrucker Kommunalbetriebe AG on the
— Declare that, by maintaining in force under Article 10 of             following questions:
     Implementing Decree No 38/91 of 29 July 1991 a system
     whereby flights from Portugal to other Member States are           A. Are the Member States, in transposing Directive
     liable to taxes in excess of those applicable to domestic              89/665/EEC (1), obliged by Article 2(6) thereof to ensure
     flights and by maintaining in force a provision by way of              that the contracting authority’s decision prior to con-
     Decree-Law No 102/91 of 8 March 1991, as implemented                   clusion of the contract as to which tenderer in an award
     by subsequent relevant Implementing Orders, that flights               procedure it will, on the basis of the results of that
     from Portugal to other Member States are liable to payment             procedure, conclude the contract with (in other words, the
     of taxes in excess of those payable in respect of certain              award decision) is, despite the possibility of restricting
     domestic flights, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil         the legal effect of the review procedure following the
     its obligations under Article 3(1) of Council Regulation               conclusion of the contract to the award of damages, in all
     (EEC) No 2408/92 (1);                                                  cases amenable to proceedings whereby an applicant may
                                                                            have that decision annulled if the relevant conditions are
— Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                           met?


title: Case C-532/10 P: Appeal brought on 16 November 2010 by adp Gauselmann GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-106/09: adp Gauselmann GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Archer Maclean

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/2

         Appeal brought on 16 November 2010 by adp Gauselmann GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-106/09: adp Gauselmann GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Archer Maclean
   (Case C-532/10 P)
   2011/C 38/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: adp Gauselmann GmbH (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), Archer Maclean

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the appealed judgment dated 9 September 2010 of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-106/09.

               —

               Annul the decision of 12 January 2009 issued by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM or, subsidiarily, return the case to the General Court of the European Union.

               —

               Order the adverse parties to pay the costs incurred in both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court's judgment was not consistent with the case law relating to the interpretation of article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation (1). The appellant's submission is based on the following grounds:

               —

               The appellant maintains that the General Court was wrong to give the words ‘Archer Maclean's’, which have a clearly secondary or marginal representation within the whole of the trademark applied for, which renders them almost illegible, the same differentiating value as the word ‘MERCURY’, which is the distinctive and dominant element, when reaching the conclusion that there is no likelihood of confusion with the opposing mark, ‘MERKUR’.

               —

               The appellant maintains that the judgment of the General Court was wrong in its assessment of the two marks, since the word ‘MERCURY’, which is the distinctive and dominant element in the trademark applied for, not only lacks any meaning in the language of the relevant market, i.e. Germany, but is also very similar, phonetically and visually, to the opposing trademark, ‘MERKUR’.

               —

               Finally the appellant maintains that the General Court was wrong to consider the minimal differences between the word ‘MERCURY’, which is the distinctive and dominating element in the trademark applied for, and ‘MERKUR’, which is the symbol of the opposing trademark, to be sufficient to prevent the public from confusing the two trademarks.

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


title: Case T-220/14: Judgment of the General Court of (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Saremar v Commission (State aid — Maritime transport — Public service compensation — Capital increase — Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering that it be recovered — Liquidation of the applicant — Capacity to be a party to legal proceedings — Continued interest in bringing proceedings — Failure to find that there was no need to adjudicate — Concept of aid — Service of general economic interest — Private investor test — Manifest error of assessment — Error of law — Plea of illegality — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Decision 2011/21/EU — Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty — Union framework applicable to State aid in the form of public service compensation — Altmark judgment)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/21

         Judgment of the General Court of (Eighth Chamber) of 6 April 2017 — Saremar v Commission
   (Case T-220/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Maritime transport - Public service compensation - Capital increase - Decision declaring aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering that it be recovered - Liquidation of the applicant - Capacity to be a party to legal proceedings - Continued interest in bringing proceedings - Failure to find that there was no need to adjudicate - Concept of aid - Service of general economic interest - Private investor test - Manifest error of assessment - Error of law - Plea of illegality - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Decision 2011/21/EU - Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty - Union framework applicable to State aid in the form of public service compensation - Altmark judgment))
   (2017/C 161/28)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Saremar — Sardegna Regionale Marittima SpA (Cagliari, Italy) (represented by: G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and I. Perego, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Conte, D. Grespan, and A. Bouchagiar, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione SpA (Naples, Italy) (represented initially by: F. Sciaudone, R. Sciaudone, D. Fioretti and A. Neri, and subsequently by M. Merola, B. Carnevale and M. Toniolo, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 9101 final of 22 January 2014 concerning aid measures SA.32014 (2011/C), SA.32015 (2011/C), SA.32016 (2011/C) granted by the Autonomous Region of Sardinia (Italy) to Saremar in the form of public service compensation and a capital increase, in so far as that decision found those measures to be State aid incompatible with the internal market and ordered that it be recovered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Saremar — Sardegna Regionale Marittima SpA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione SpA.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Case T-400/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Zero Industry v OHIM — zero Germany (zerorh+) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community mark zerorh+ — Earlier national figurative and word marks zero — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Similarity between products — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/56

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Zero Industry v OHIM — zero Germany (zerorh+)
   (Case T-400/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community mark zerorh+ - Earlier national figurative and word marks zero - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity between products - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 267/95
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Zero Industry Srl (Mariano Comense, Italy) (represented by: M. Rapisardi and N. Colombo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: zero Germany GmbH & Co. KG, formerly zero International Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: W.-D. Kuntze, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 October 2006 (Case R 958/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between zero Germany GmbH & Co. KG and Zero Industry Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Zero Industry Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.


title: Case T-10/13: Action brought on 9 January 2013 — Bank of Industry and Mine v Council

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/24

         Action brought on 9 January 2013 — Bank of Industry and Mine v Council
   (Case T-10/13)
   2013/C 79/42
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bank of Industry and Mine (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: E. Glaser and S. Perrotet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1(8) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 in so far as it has amended Article 20(c) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP;

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 in so far as it includes BIM in the list of entities to which the measures freezing funds referred to in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP are to apply;

               —

               Annul also Council Implementing Regulation No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 in so far as it includes BIM in the list of entities to which the measures freezing funds in Annex IX to Regulation No 267/2012 are to apply;

               —

               Declare that Regulation No 267/2012, Decision 2010/413/CFSP, as amended by Decisions 2012/35/CFSP and 2012/635/CFSP in their provisions inserting then amending Article 20(c) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP and adding the applicant to the list in Annex II, does not apply to BIM;

               —

               And, in the alternative, should Article 1(8) of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, in so far as it has amended Article 20(c) of Decision 2010/413/CFSP, not be annulled, declare that it does not apply to BIM;

               —

               Order the Council to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on ten pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-9/13 National Iranian Gas Company v Council.


title: Case C-135/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2009 — Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l’Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) ASBL — A.R.A.Ch, Léon L’Hoir, Nadine Dartois v Région wallonne

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (Belgium) lodged on 9 April 2009 — Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l’Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) ASBL — A.R.A.Ch, Léon L’Hoir, Nadine Dartois v Région wallonne
   (Case C-135/09)
   2009/C 153/42
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’Etat

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Association des Riverains et Habitants des Communes Proches de l’Aéroport B.S.C.A. (Brussels South Charleroi Airport) ASBL — A.R.A.Ch, Léon L’Hoir, Nadine Dartois

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) be interpreted as excluding from its application legislation — such as the Decree of the Walloon Region on certain consents for which there are overriding reasons in the general interest of 17 July 2008 — which merely states that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’ for the grant of town planning consents, environmental consents and combined town planning and environmental consents relating to the acts and works listed therein and which ‘ratifies’ consents in respect of which it is stated that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Do Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Council Directive No 97/11/EC (2) and Directive No 2003/35/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council, preclude a legal regime in which the right to implement a project subject to an environmental impact assessment is conferred by a legislative act against which no review procedure is available before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law which makes it possible to challenge, both in terms of the substance and the procedure followed, the decision granting the right to implement the project?

                           (b)

                           Must Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality, in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment, of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the provisions of Article 6?

                           (c)

                           In the light of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC (4) of 17 February 2005, must Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC, be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality of decisions, acts or omissions in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

      (2)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).

      (3)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

      (4)  Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).


title: Case C-510/04: Action brought on 13 December 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/16

         Action brought on 13 December 2004 by Commission of the European Communities against Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-510/04)
   (2005/C 31/32)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1)

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 February 2002 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States of the Community (1), and in any event by failing to notify them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2)

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 9 September 2003.

      (1)  OJ L 67 of 9.3.2002, p. 31