title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 29 February 1996 in Case C-239/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/263/EEC - Failure to transpose)

text:
4 . 5 . 96            I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 133/9
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                     (First Chamber)
                       of 29 February 1996                                                  of 29 February 1996
in Case C-239/94: Commission of the European                           in Case C-300/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                    Communities v. Ireland ( l )                       the Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Andalusia ): Tirma SA v.
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/263/EEC —                           Administración General del Estado (M
                        Failure to transpose)                          (Protocol No 2 to the Act ofAccession ofSpain andPortugal
                             ( 96/C 133/ 17                            — Canary Islands — Customs territory of the Community
                                                                       — Processed agricultural products — Exemption from
                                                                       customs duties — Article S of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 3033/80 — Variable component)
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/ 18
                 (Language of tbe case: English)
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: Spanisb)
In Case C-239/94 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Thomas F. Cusack and David
Mclntyre ) v. Ireland ( Agent: Michael A. Buckley) —
application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into
force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and           (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council                      published in the European Court Reports)
Directive 91/263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning
telecommunications terminal equipment, including the
mutual recognition of their conformity ( OJNoL128,1991 ,               In Case C-300/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
p . 1 ), or alternatively, by failing to inform the Commission         of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia ( High
of such measures, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations         Court of Justice ), Andalusia ( Spain ), for a preliminary ruling
under the Directive, in particular Article 17 thereof, and             in the proceedings pending before that court between Tirma
under the third paragraph of Article 1 89 of the EC Treaty —           SA and Administraciôn           General    del   Estado  on the
the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris,               interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3033/80 of
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini                     11 November 1980 laying down the trade arrangements
( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn,               applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of
Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,             agricultural products ( OJ No L 323 , 1980 , p . 1 ), as regards
has given a judgment on 29 February 1996 , in which it:                the variable component of the charge applicable to goods
                                                                       resulting from the processing of agricultural products — the
                                                                       Court ( First Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and
                                                                       M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; R.
1 , declares that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                       Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 February 1996
      prescribed period the laws, regulations and                      in which it rules :
      administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 91 /263/EEC of 29 April 1991 on the
      approximation of the laws of the Member States
      concerning telecommunications terminal equipment,
      including the mutual recognition of their conformity,            The variable component of the charge concerning processed
      Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under               agricultural products, provided for in Article 5 of Council
      Article 17 of the Directive and under the third                  Regulation (EEC) No 3033/80 of 11 November 1980 laying
      paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty;                       down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods
                                                                       resulting from the processing of agricultural products, falls
                                                                       within the arrangements laid down in Article 1 (1 ) to (3) of
                                                                       Protocol No 2 to the Act of Accession of the Kingdom of
                                                                       Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and is not covered by
2 , orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                   the exemption laid down in Article 2 of that Protocol.
 (') OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .                                     0 ) OJ No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 2005 in Case T-193/02: Laurent Piau v Commission of the European Communities (Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) Players' agents regulation — Decision of an association of undertakings — Articles 49 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC — Complaint — Lack of Community interest — Rejection)

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/28

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 26 January 2005
   in Case T-193/02: Laurent Piau v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) Players' agents regulation - Decision of an association of undertakings - Articles 49 EC, 81 EC and 82 EC - Complaint - Lack of Community interest - Rejection)
   (2005/C 82/54)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-193/02: Laurent Piau, residing in Nantes (France), represented by M. Fauconnet, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: O. Beynet and A. Bouquet with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA), established in Zurich (Switzerland), represented by F. Louis and A. Vallery, lawyers — application for annulment of the Commission decision of 15 April 2002 rejecting the applicant's complaint concerning the Fédération internationale de football association (FIFA) Players' agents regulation — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 January 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

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

               3.

               Orders the Fédération internationale de football association to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 219 of 14.09.2002.


title: Case T-312/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — Commission v Alexiadou (Arbitration clause — Contract concerning a project for the development of a new technology for producing impermeable leathers — Reimbursement of an advance payment — Interest — Default proceedings)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — Commission v Alexiadou
   (Case T-312/05) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contract concerning a project for the development of a new technology for producing impermeable leathers - Reimbursement of an advance payment - Interest - Default proceedings)
   (2007/C 199/67)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agent, assisted by D. Nikopoulos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Efrosyni Alexiadou (Thessalonica, Greece)
   Re:
   Application brought by the Commission under Article 238 EC with a view to securing repayment of an advance made to the defendant in the context of a contract concerning a project for the development of technology for producing impermeable leathers (contract G1ST-CT-2002-50227).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               orders the Commission to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.


title: Joined Cases C-65/09 and C-87/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Amtsgericht Schorndorf (Germany)) — Gebr. Weber GmbH v Jürgen Wittmer (C-65/09), Ingrid Putz v Medianess Electronics GmbH (Consumer protection — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Directive 1999/44/EC — Article 3(2) and (3) — Replacement of defective goods as the only remedy — Defective goods already installed by the consumer — Obligation on the seller to remove the defective goods and install the replacement goods — Absolute lack of proportionality — Consequences)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Amtsgericht Schorndorf (Germany)) — Gebr. Weber GmbH v Jürgen Wittmer (C-65/09), Ingrid Putz v Medianess Electronics GmbH
   (Joined Cases C-65/09 and C-87/09) (1)

   (Consumer protection - Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees - Directive 1999/44/EC - Article 3(2) and (3) - Replacement of defective goods as the only remedy - Defective goods already installed by the consumer - Obligation on the seller to remove the defective goods and install the replacement goods - Absolute lack of proportionality - Consequences)
   2011/C 226/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring courts

   Bundesgerichtshof, Amtsgericht Schorndorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Gebr. Weber GmbH (C-65/09), Ingrid Putz (C-87/09)

      Defendants: Jürgen Wittmer (C-65/09), Medianess Electronics GmbH (C-87/09)

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof, Amtsgericht Schorndorf — Interpretation of Article 3(2) and (3) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12) — Sale to a consumer of goods lacking conformity through no fault of the seller — Goods correctly installed by the consumer — National legislation under which, in the absence of other forms of remedy, the seller is not obliged to replace goods lacking conformity if the cost would be unreasonable — Compatibility of that legislation with the Community provisions cited above — If incompatible, interpretation of the concept of ‘replacement free of charge’ in Article 3(3) of the above directive — Liability of the seller for the cost of dismantling goods lacking conformity correctly installed by the consumer

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(2) and (3) of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees must be interpreted as meaning that, where consumer goods not in conformity with the contract which were installed in good faith by the consumer in a manner consistent with their nature and purpose, before the defect became apparent, are restored to conformity by way of replacement, the seller is obliged either to remove the goods from where they were installed and to install the replacement goods there or else to bear the cost of that removal and installation of the replacement goods. That obligation on the seller exists regardless of whether he was obliged under the contract of sale to install the consumer goods originally purchased.

               2.

               Article 3(3) of Directive 1999/44 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation from granting the seller the right to refuse to replace goods not in conformity, as the only remedy possible, on the ground that, because of the obligation to remove the goods from where they were installed and to install the replacement goods there, replacement imposes costs on him which are disproportionate with regard to the value that the goods would have if there were no lack of conformity and the significance of the lack of conformity. That provision does not, however, preclude the consumer’s right to reimbursement of the cost of removing the defective goods and of installing the replacement goods from being limited, in such a case, to the payment by the seller of a proportionate amount.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 1999 in Case T-182/96: Partex - Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços SA v Commission of the European Communities (Social policy - European Social Fund - Action for annulment - Reduction in financial aid - Facts and accounts certified as accurate - Competence ratione temporis of the State concerned - Statement of reasons - Rights of the defence - Abuse of rights - Legitimate expectations - Protection of vested rights - Misuse of powers)

text:
30.10.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 314/7
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                2. The remainder of the action is dismissed.
                                                                           3. Each party shall bear its own costs.
                        of 16 September 1999
                                                                           (1) OJ C 26 of 25.1.1997.
in Case T-182/96: Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de
Serviços SA v Commission of the European Communi-
                                 ties (1)
(Social policy — European Social Fund — Action for                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
annulment — Reduction in financial aid — Facts and
accounts certified as accurate — Competence ratione tempo-
ris of the State concerned — Statement of reasons — Rights                                      of 29 September 1999
of the defence — Abuse of rights — Legitimate expectations
      — Protection of vested rights — Misuse of powers)
                                                                           in Case T-126/97: Sonasa — Sociedade Nacional de
                                                                           Segurança, Ld.a v Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties (1)
                           (1999/C 314/16)
                                                                           (Action for annulment — European Social Fund —
                                                                           Reduction of financial assistance — Legitimate expectations
                                                                           — Legal certainty — Sound administration — Inadequate
                                                                                statement of reasons)
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                                (1999/C 314/17)
In Case T-182/96: Partex — Companhia Portuguesa de Ser-                                     (Language of the case: Portuguese)
viços SA, whose registered office is in Lisbon, represented by
Rui Chancerelle de Machete, Pedro Machete and Miguel Pena
Machete, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in                 In Case T-126/97: Sonasa — Sociedade Nacional de Segurança,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort                 Ld.a, established in Lisbon, represented by Nuno Morais
Rheinsheim v Commission of the European Communities                        Sarmento, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
(Agents: Maria Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonsson) — appli-                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Victor Gillen, 13 Rue
cation for annulment of Commission Decision C (96) 1184 of                 Aldringen v Commission of the European Communities
14 August 1996 reducing the financial assistance from the                  (Agents: Maria Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonson) — appli-
European Social Fund granted in respect of project No                      cation for annulment of Commission Decision C (96) 3451 of
880412/P3 — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),                   16 December 1996 reducing financial assistance granted to
composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,                the applicant by the European Social Fund — the Court of
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,            First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura
gave a judgment on 16 September 1999, the operative part of                Ramos, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
which is as follows:                                                       Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 September 1999, in which
                                                                           it:
1. Commission Decision C (96) 1184 of 14 August 1996 reduc-                1. Dismisses the action;
     ing the financial assistance from the European Social Fund in
     respect of project No 880412/P3 is annulled in so far as it           2. Orders the applicant to pay all the costs.
     imposes, in regard to subheadings 14.2.6, 14.2.7, 14.3.1(b),
     14.3.1(c), 14.3.7, 14.63.8 and 14.3.15 of the part of the
     project relating to Tintas Robbialac SA and subheadings 14.2.8,       (1) OJ No C 199 of 28.6.1997.
     14.3.1(b), 14.3.1(c), 14.3.7 and 14.3.11 of the part of the
     project relating to Sapec — Produits et Engrais Chimiques du
     Portugal SA, a reduction in the amounts claimed by the applicant
     in its final payment claim.


title: Action brought on 3 October 1995 by Nutria AE against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-180/95)

text:
No C 333/ 16          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9 . 12 . 95
The pleas and main arguments are the same as those                   First Instance on 3 October 1995 by Nutria AE, a company
advanced by the applicant in Case T-66/95 Kuchlenz                  governed by Greek law, having its registered office in Agios
Winter v. Commission .                                               Konstantinos, Fthiotida ( Greece ), represented by
                                                                     Konstantinos Adamadopoulos, of the Athens Bar, with an
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Arsene Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire .
Action brought on 5 September 1995 by Hedwig
Kuchlenz-Winter against the Council of the European                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
                               Union
                       ( Case T-167/95 )
                          ( 95/C 333/30 )
                                                                     1 . order the Commission to pay it compensation of
                                                                           Dr 288 304 629 plus default interest at the rate of 29 %
                                                                           from 5 December 1994 for actual losses and lost profits
               (Language of the case: German)                              suffered in the olive oil marketing year 1994/95 caused
                                                                           by the unlawful conduct of the Commission;
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 5 September 1995 by Hedwig                            2 . order the Commission to pay it compensation of
Kuchlenz-Winter, residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg ),                        Dr 82 500 000 for the damage suffered by the applicant
represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhovel                   by reason of the harm to its commercial reputation
( Federal Republic of Germany ), with an address for service               caused by the unlawful conduct of the Commision;
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin Machmer, 1 Rue
Roger Barthel, Bereldange .
                                                                     3 . order the Commission to pay the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that the Council has unlawfully failed to act in
    relation to the applicant, inasmuch as, following the            Pleas in law and main arguments:
    pension rights adjustment effected in the applicant's
    favour pursuant to paragraph 1587 et seq. of the
    Biirgerliches Gesetzbuch ( German Civil Code ), the              The applicant is a company which mass-produces and
    applicant should not have been excluded from the                 markets agricultural products . It took part in the tendering
    sickness insurance scheme; the defendant omitted to              procedure announced by the Commission of the European
    prevent that from happening, in that it unlawfully failed,       Communities for the despatch of 3 000 tonnes of olive oil to
    within the framework of its powers in relation to the            the people of Georgia and Armenia on the basis of
    scheme , to propose to the competent EC institutions the         Commission Regulations ( EEC ) Nos 2494/94 and 2693/94
    corresponding amendments to the Staff Regulations of             and succeeded in being awarded the supply of 1 500 tonnes
    Officials,                                                       of olive oil . The applicant maintains that because of the
                                                                     two-month delay in taking over the goods on the part of the
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             transporter, the choice of which was the sole responsibility
                                                                     of the Commission under Regulation ( EC ) No 2693/94, it
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     suffered significant losses and lost profits . In particular the
                                                                     applicant claims, on the basis of Articles 178 and the second
The pleas and main arguments advanced by the applicant               paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty: ( a ) compensation for
are   the   same   as    those    invoked  in   Case   T-66/95       the actual losses suffered, that is to say the warehousing and
Kuchlenz-Winter v. Commission and in Case T-l 64/95                  supervision charges paid during the period of the delay; ( b )
Kuchlenz-Winter v. Parliament.                                       lost profits, in view of the fact that the security lodged in the
                                                                     context of the tendering procedure with the Commission
                                                                     could not be released, with the result that the applicant
                                                                     could not obtain financing to carry out commercial
                                                                     transactions on the market and resell quantities of olive oil
                                                                     at a period that is extremely crucial for the olive oil market;
Action brought on 3 October 1995 by Nutria AE against the            ( c ) default interest on the amount of the actual losses and
        Commission of the European Communities                       lost profits at the interest rate prevailing in Greece ( 29 % );
                       ( Case T-180/95                               and ( d ) lost profits on the ground of the harm to its
                                                                     commercial reputation and consequent loss of customers in
                          ( 95/C 333/31 )                            the commercial year 1995/96 .
                (Language of the case: Greek)
An action for damages against the Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 11 July 1995 in Case C-266/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 92/44/EEC - Reasoned opinion - Failure to take account of observations submitted by the Member State in response to the formal notice - Inadmissibility)

text:
2 . 9 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 229/ 11
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                    in Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) of Directive 69/335/EEC concerning
                           of 11 July 1995                              indirect taxes on the raising of capital ( 1 ), or are the
                                                                        individual Member States free to decide what may be
       in Case C-266/94: Commission of the European                     regarded as 'fees or dues ' for a specific service ?
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/44/EEC —
Reasoned opinion — Failure to take account of                           Question 2 :
observations submitted by the Member State in response to
             the formal notice — Inadmissibility)                       May the basis for the calculation of duties charged under
                               95/C 229/20 )                            Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) of Directive 69/335/EEC by a Member
                                                                        State for registration of formation or increase in capital of a
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                         public limited company or a private limited company
                                                                        include the following types of costs or some of them:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                      — The cost of salaries and pension contributions for
                                                                             officials not involved in effecting the registration, such as
In Case C-266/94 : Commission of the European                                the registration authority's administrative staff or staff
Communities ( Agent: Blanca Rodriguez Galindo ) v.                           of the registration authority or other authorities who are
Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez                    engaged on preparatory legal work in the field of
and Miguel Bravo-Ferrer Delgado, Abogado del Estado ) —                      company law.
application for a declaration that by not adopting all the
necessary measures to comply with Council Directive
92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of open                     — The cost of effecting registration of other matters
network provision to leasedjines (2 ), the Kingdom of Spain                  relating to companies, in respect of which the Member
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive — the              State has determined that no specific consideration is to
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,                     be paid.
F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann,
Presidents of Chamber, G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris, J. C.            — The cost of performing duties, other than registration,
Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward                           required of the registration authority in pursuance of
( Rapporteur ), J. P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and                              company legislation and legislation related thereto, such
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;                         as examination of companies' accounts and supervision
R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 11 July 1995 , the                     of companies' book-keeping.
operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                        — Payment of interest and depreciation of all capital costs
I. the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                             which are regarded by the registration authority as
                                                                             concerning the field of company law and related fields of
2 . the Commission shall pay the costs.                                      law.
(') OJ No C 304 , 20 . 10 . 1994 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 165 , 19 . 6 . 1992 , p . 27 .                            — The cost of official journeys not connected with the
                                                                              specific work of registration .
                                                                        — The cost of the registration authority's external
                                                                              dissemination of information and guidance not
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the 0stre Landsret                   connected with the specific work of registration, such as
by order of 8 June 1995 in the case of Fantask A/S and                        lecturing, preparation of articles and brochures and
      Others v. Industrieministeriet ( Erhvervsministeriet)                   holding of meetings with trade organizations and other
                                                                              interested groups .
                          ( Case C-188/95 )
                             ( 95/C 229/21 )
                                                                        Question 3 :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the 0stre Landsret                  ( a ) Is Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) of Directive 69/335/EEC to be
( Eastern Regional Court) of 8 June 1995 , which was                           interpreted as meaning that a Member State is
received at the Court Registry on 15 June 1995 , for a                         precluded from fixing standardized charges by rules
preliminary ruling in the case of Fantask A/S and Others                       valid without limitation of time ?
v. Industrieministeriet ( Erhvervsministeriet ) ( Ministry
of Industry — Ministry of Trade ) on the following
questions :
                                                                        ( b ) If not, is a Member State required to adjust its scale of
                                                                               charges every year or at other fixed intervals ?
Question 1 :
                                                                        (c ) Is it of any significance for the answer whether charges
Does Community law impose requirements upon the                                are fixed in proportion to the amount of the capital to
Member States' delimitation of the concept of ' fees or dues'                  be raised, as notified for registration ?


title: Case T-328/01: Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Tony Robinson against Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.3.2002                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 56/19
In that decision, the Commission explains that, in 1993, when              Pleas in law and main arguments
examining previous requests by the applicant for co-financing,
it concluded that the applicant was not eligible for such co-
financing inasmuch as it did not meet the applicable criteria,             In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges infringement
and that once the competent departments declare an NGO                     of the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff
to be ineligible for Community co-financing that decision                  Regulations, breach of the principle of sound administration
automatically results in the rejection of any projects sub-                and of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials. In
sequently submitted, until such time as the NGO meets the                  particular, the procedure for drawing up the staff report was
eligibility criteria. In the applicant’s view, that approach is not        considerably delayed and was followed without consulting the
in conformity either with European Union law or with the                   ad hoc group, which was essential in view of the union duties
principles of sound administration.                                        undertaken by the applicant.
The applicant also states that the Commission has constantly
maintained, both in the contested decision and in the course
of the procedure which took place before the European
Ombudsman following the complaints lodged by the appli-                    Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Tony Robinson
cant, that the applicant had acted fraudulently in order                       against Commission of the European Communities
to obtain financing funds. The applicant asserts that that
assessment is unfounded and that the contested decision is                                         (Case T-328/01)
therefore unjustified.
                                                                                (2002/C 56/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Tony
Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Luciano Lavag-                       Robinson, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot,
  noli against Commission of the European Communities                      lawyer.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case T-327/01)
                                                                           —     annul the decision taken at the meeting of the Bureau of
                            (2002/C 56/34)                                       the ESP Parliamentary Group on 6 and 7 March 2001 in
                                                                                Brussels to the effect that, on the proposal of the
                                                                                Secretary-General, the Bureau decided to promote two
                     (Language of the case: French)                              persons other than the applicant to Grade A 3 with effect
                                                                                from 1 March 2001;
                                                                           —     compensate the applicant to the tune of EUR 10 000;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Luciano
Lavagnoli, residing in Berchem (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg),                Pleas in law and main arguments
represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer.
                                                                           In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges infringement
                                                                           of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and infringement of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                rules of procedure of the secretariat of the socialist group, as
                                                                           well as breach of general principles of law such as the
—     grant the applicant BEF 500 000 (EUR 12 396,49) by                   principles of sound administration, the protection of legitimate
      way of damages in compensation for non-material dam-                 expectations, legal certainty and equal treatment. Furthermore,
      age caused as a result of the failure, to date, to draw up a         the applicant alleges error of assessment, misuse of powers
      definitive staff report for the period 1 July 1997 to                and ultra vires. According to the applicant, consideration of his
      30 June 1999;                                                        merits should have necessarily resulted in his promotion rather
                                                                           than in that of the persons promoted by way of the contested
                                                                           decision.
—     make an appropriate order as to costs ordering the
      defendant to pay the costs and fees.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 4 February 1998 in Case T-246/93: Günther Bühring v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Milk - Additional levy - Reference quantity - Conversion undertaking - Forced sale of holding - Damage - Causal link - Limitation period)

text:
C 94/18              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
                                                 COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                     of 4 February 1998                                                of 27 January 1998
in Case T-246/93: Günther Bühring v. Council of the               in Case T-67/94: Ladbroke Racing Ltd v. Commission of
European Union and Commission of the European                                     the European Communities (1)
                       Communities (1)
                                                                  (Action for annulment Ð State aid Ð Market in bet-
(Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability Ð Milk            taking Ð Article 92(1) and (3) of the EC Treaty Ð
Ð Additional levy Ð Reference quantity Ð Conversion               Definition of aid Ð Tax measures Ð Obligation to
undertaking Ð Forced sale of holding Ð Damage Ð                                               refund)
              Causal link Ð Limitation period)
                                                                                (98/C 94/48)
                         (98/C 94/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                  In Case T-67/94: Ladbroke Racing Ltd, established in
In Case T-246/93: Günther Bühring, residing at Elsfleth           London, represented by Jeremy Lever QC, Christopher
(Germany), represented by Hagen Lichtenberg, Bergius-             Vajda, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Stephen Kon,
straûe 11, Bremen (Germany) v. Council of the European            Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and             Chambers of Winandy & Err, 60 Avenue Gaston Diderich,
Georg M. Berrisch) and Commission of the European                 against Commission of the European Communities
Communities (Agents: Dierk Booû, Hans-Jürgen Rabe and             (Agents: Michel Nolin and Richard Lyal), supported by
Georg M. Berrisch) Ð application pursuant to Article 178          French Republic (Agents: Catherine de Salins and Jean-
and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty          Marc Belorgey) Ð application principally for annulment
for compensation for the losses sustained by the applicant        of Commission Decision 93/625/EEC of 22 September
as a result of the application of Council Regulation (EEC)        1993 concerning aid granted by the French authorities to
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for             the Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU) and to the racecourse
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of          undertakings (OJ L 300, 7.12.1993, p. 15) Ð the Court of
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                   First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13), as                    composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President, B. Vesterdorf, C. P.
supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/              BrieÈt, A. Kalogeropoulos and A. Potocki, Judges; B.
84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11) Ð the              Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Court (First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio, President,         a judgment on 27 January 1998, in which it:
V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; A. Mair,
Administrator, has given a judgment on 4 February 1998
in which it:
                                                                  1. annuls Commission Decision 93/625/EEC of
                                                                       22 September 1993 concerning aid granted by the
                                                                       French authorities to the Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU)
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                       and to the racecourse undertakings in so far as it
                                                                       found that various advantages granted to the PMU,
                                                                       through (a) the amendment in 1985 and 1986 of the
                                                                       allocation of the levies, (b) cash-flow benefits granted
                                                                       to it by the authorisation to defer payment of certain
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.                              levies on betting, (c) access to unclaimed winnings,
                                                                       and (d) exemption from the one-month delay rule for
                                                                       the deduction of value added tax, after 1 January
(1) OJ C 166, 17.6.1993.                                               1989, do not constitute State aid for the purposes of
                                                                       Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty, and also in so far as it
                                                                       decided that the obligation on the French State to
                                                                       require repayment of the aid deriving from the PMU's
                                                                       exemption from the housing levy applies not as from
                                                                       1989, but as from 11 January 1991;


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 12 March 1998 in Case C-270/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif, Paris): Laboratoires Sarget SA v. Fonds d'intervention et de régularisation du marché du sucre (FIRS) (Refund for use of sugar in the manufacture of certain chemical products - Anti-asthenia products - Tariff classification)

text:
C 137/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2.5.98
strator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                  composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M.
10 March 1998, in which it has ruled:                                Wathelet, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann and L.
                                                                     Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-
1. the first paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty               General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
     must be interpreted as not applying to cases involving          Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 March 1998, in
     imports of bananas from a third country which is not            which it:
     a party to an international agreement concluded by
     Member States before the entry into force of the                1. declares that by excluding, by regulation or
     Treaty.                                                              administrative practice, the taking into account of
                                                                          previous employment in the public service of another
2. Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 of 1 March                        Member State for the purposes of granting to an
     1995 on additional rules for the application of Council              employee in Greek public service a seniority increment
     Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the tariff                     and of grading him on the salary scale, on the sole
     quota arrangements for imports of bananas into the                   ground that the previous employment was not
     Community and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1442/                     performed in Greek public service, the Hellenic
     93 is invalid to the extent to which Article 3(2) thereof            Republic is in breach of its obligations under
     imposes only on category A and C operators the                       Community law, in particular within the meaning of
     obligation to obtain export licences for bananas from                Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7(1) of
     Colombia, Costa Rica or Nicaragua.                                   Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October
                                                                          1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
                                                                          Community;
(1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
(2) OJ L 49, 4.3.1995, p. 13.
                                                                     2. orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 210, 20.7.1996.
                                                                     (2) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 12 March 1998
      in Case C-187/96: Commission of the European                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
             Communities v. Hellenic Republic (1)                                            (Fourth Chamber)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð                                      of 12 March 1998
Freedom of movement for workers Ð Article 48 of the EC
                                                                     in Case C-270/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Treaty Ð Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Ð
                                                                     the Tribunal Administratif, Paris): Laboratoires Sarget SA
Person working in the public service of a Member State Ð
                                                                     v. Fonds d'intervention et de reÂgularisation du marcheÂ du
Mutual recognition of periods of employment in the
                                                                                sucre (FIRS) (1)
           public service of another Member State)
                                                                     (Refund for use of sugar in the manufacture of certain
                         (98/C 137/07)
                                                                     chemical products Ð Anti-asthenia products Ð Tariff
                                                                                classification)
                (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (98/C 137/08)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                       (Language of the case: French)
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-187/96: Commission of the European                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Communities (Agent: Maria Patakia) v. Hellenic Republic                        published in the European Court Reports)
(Agents: Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and Stamatina
Vodina) Ð application for a declaration that by excluding,           In Case C-270/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
by regulation or administrative practice, the taking into            Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal
account of previous employment in the public service of              Administratif (Administrative Court), Paris, for a
another Member State for the purposes of granting to an              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
employee in Greek public service a seniority increment               court between Laboratoires Sarget SA and Fonds
and of grading him on the salary scale, on the sole ground           d'intervention et de reÂgularisation du marcheÂ du sucre
that that previous employment was not performed in                   (FIRS) Ð on the interpretation of Council Regulation
Greek public service, the Hellenic Republic is in breach of          (EEC) No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 laying down
its obligations under Community law, in particular within            general rules for the production refund on certain sugar
the meaning of Articles 5 and 48 of the EC Treaty and                products used in the chemical industry (2), as amended by
Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of               Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1714/88
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers                   of 13 June 1988 amending certain regulations concerning
within the Community (2) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),                the application of the common market organisation for
 ---pagebreak--- 2.5.98                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 137/5
sugar following the introduction of the Combined                      Caisse d'allocations familiales de l'Essonne Ð on the
Nomenclature (3), and on the interpretation of Chapter 30             interpretation of Article 39(1) of the Cooperation
of the Combined Nomenclature, as established by Annex I               Agreement between the European Economic Community
to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987                and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, signed in
on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the                 Algiers on 26 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the
Common Customs Tariff (4) Ð the Court (Fourth                         Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2210/78 of
Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the                 26 September 1978 (2) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Fourth                composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray (Rapporteur),              R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and G. F. Mancini, Judges; F. G.
Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                    Jacobs, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 March 1998, in
12 March 1998, in which it has ruled:                                 which it has ruled:
products consisting of ingredients identical to those                 There is no need to reply to the question referred.
contained in Sargenor, Dynamisan, Lysivit and Sarvit and
in the same proportions cannot be classified within                   (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature as                          (2) OJ L 263, 27.9.1978, p. 1.
established in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, and
consequently do not come within the scope of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 laying
down general rules for the production refund on certain
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
sugar products used in the chemical industry, as amended
by Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1714/                                         (First Chamber)
88 of 13 June 1988 amending certain regulations                                            of 5 December 1997
concerning the application of the common market
organisation for sugar following the introduction of the              in Case C-218/97 P: Council of the European Union v.
Combined Nomenclature.                                                           Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus (1)
                                                                                (Appeal manifestly inadmissible)
(1 ) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
(2 ) OJ L 94, 9.4.1986, p. 9.                                                                 (98/C 137/10)
(3)  OJ L 152, 18.6.1988, p. 23.
(4)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.                                                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 In Case C-218/97 P: Council of the European Union
                                                                      (Agents: Amadeu Lopes Sabino and Diego Canga Fano
                         (Sixth Chamber)                              and TheÂreÁse Blanchet) Ð appeal against the judgment of
                       of 12 March 1998                               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities,
                                                                      First Chamber, of 16 April 1997, in Case T-80/96 Leite
in Case C-314/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from             Mateus v. Council [1997] ECR II-259, seeking to have
the Tribunal des affaires de securiteÂ sociale, Evry): Ourdia         that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
   Djabali v. Caisse d'allocations familiales de l'Essonne (1)        being Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus, residing in
(EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement Ð Article 39(1) Ð                  Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
Principle of non-discrimination in the field of social                Thierry Demaseure, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise
security Ð Disabled adults' allowance Ð Reference for a               Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                       preliminary ruling)                            in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30, rue de
                                                                      Cessange Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of M.
                          (98/C 137/09)                               Wathelet, President of Chambers, D. A. O. Edward and L.
                                                                      Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General;
                 (Language of the case: French)                       R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 5 December 1997,
                                                                      the operative part of which is as follows:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                    1. the appeal is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                      2. the appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
In Case C-314/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal des
affaires de securiteÂ sociale (Social Security Court), Evry           (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Ourdia Djabali and


title: Case T-153/10: Order of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Schneider España de Informática, SA v European Commission (Customs union — Importation of colour television sets assembled in Turkey — Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Application for waiver of post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties and for remission of those duties — Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Commission decision rejecting that application — Annulment by the national court of decisions taken by national authorities ordering post-clearance entry of import duties in the accounts — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/16

         Order of the General Court of 28 February 2012 — Schneider España de Informática, SA v European Commission
   (Case T-153/10) (1)

   (Customs union - Importation of colour television sets assembled in Turkey - Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Application for waiver of post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties and for remission of those duties - Article 220(2)(b) and Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Commission decision rejecting that application - Annulment by the national court of decisions taken by national authorities ordering post-clearance entry of import duties in the accounts - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 126/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Schneider España de Informática, SA (Torrejón de Ardoz (Spain)) (represented by: P. De Baere and P. Muñiz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Bouyon, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 22 final of 18 January 2010 finding that post-clearance entry in the accounts of import duties is justified and that remission of those duties is not justified in a particular case (Case REM 02/08),

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case C-139/06: Action brought on  10 March 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/14

         Action brought on 10 March 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-139/06)
   (2006/C 108/22)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis et D. Lawunmi, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the following Directives of the European Parliament and of the Council, namely, 2002/96/EC (1) on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and 2003/108/EC of 8 December 2003 amending Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (2), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which te directives had to be transposed expired on 13 August 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 37, 13/02/2003, P. 24-39

      (2)  OJ L 345, 13/12/2003 P. 106-107


title: Case C-448/09 P: Order of the Court of 30 June 2010 — Royal Appliance International GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Earlier mark ‘sensixx’ — Word mark ‘Centrixx’ — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Application for revocation of an earlier mark — Proceedings pending before the national courts — Request for a stay of the proceedings before the General Court)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/17

      Order of the Court of 30 June 2010 — Royal Appliance International GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH
      (Case C-448/09 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Earlier mark ‘sensixx’ - Word mark ‘Centrixx’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Application for revocation of an earlier mark - Proceedings pending before the national courts - Request for a stay of the proceedings before the General Court)
      (2010/C 288/27)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Appellant: Royal Appliance International GmbH (represented by: K.-J. Michaeli and M. Schork, Rechtsanwälte)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Schäffner, acting as Agent), BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate GmbH (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

         Re:

      Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 September 2009 in Case T-446/09 Royal Appliance International v OHIM — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte, by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007, rejecting the registration of the word mark ‘Centrixx’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 7, by granting the opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘sensixx’ — Failure to stay the proceedings while awaiting the resolution of the dispute pending before the national courts concerning the application for revocation of the earlier mark — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion between two marks

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Royal Appliance International GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 16 December 1997 in Case C-325/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ld.ª v. Subdirector-Geral das Alfândegas; joined as a party: Ministério Público (Inward processing relief arrangements - Special arrangements for milk sector products - Extension of the time-limit for export)

text:
C 55/8                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      20.2.98
health conditions governing the placing on the market of              Administrativo (Portuguese Supreme Administrative
aquaculture animals and products (OJ L 175, 19.7.1993,                Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
p. 34), Council Directive 93/113/EC of 14 December 1993               before that court between FaÂbrica de Queijo Eru Portu-
concerning the use and marketing of enzymes, micro-                   guesa Ld..a and Subdirector-Geral das AlfaÃndegas; joined
organisms and their preparations in animal nutrition (OJ              as a party: MinisteÂrio PuÂblico Ð on the interpretation of
L 334, 31.12.1993, p. 17) and Council Directive 93/114/               Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of
EC of 14 December 1993 amending Directive 70/524/EEC                  16 July 1985 on inward processing relief arrangements
concerning additives in feedingstuffs (OJ L 334,                      (OJ L 188, 20.7.1985, p. 1) and Articles 27 and 28 of
31.12.1993, p. 24), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil         Council Regulation (EEC) No 3677/86 of 24 November
its obligations under those Directives and the EC Treaty              1986 laying down provisions for the implementation of
Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.                          Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 (OJ L 351, 12.12.1986,
Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R.                  p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC)
Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, P. J. G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch,             No 2281/88 of 25 July 1988 (OJ L 200, 26.7.1988, p. 20)
Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                    Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H.
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on             Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
16 December 1997, in which it:                                        P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
                                                                      Colomer, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
1. declares that, by failing to bring into force within the           Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     prescribed periods the laws, regulations and                     16 December 1997, in which it has ruled:
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993                      Article 28 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3677/86 of
     introducing minimum Community measures for the                   24 November 1986 laying down provisions for the
     control of certain fish diseases, Council Directive 93/          implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 on
     113/EC of 14 December 1993 concerning the use and                inward processing relief arrangements, as amended by
     marketing of enzymes, micro-organisms and their                  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2281/88 of 25 July
     preparations in animal nutrition and Council Directive           1988, must be interpreted as meaning that the time-limits
     93/114/EC of 14 December 1993 amending Directive                 for re-export laid down therein may not be extended.
     70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under the first subparagraph of Article 20(1) of                 (1) OJ C 354, 23.11.1996.
     Directive 93/53/EEC, the first subparagraph of
     Article 8(1) of Directive 93/113/EC and the first
     subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 93/114/EC;
2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.                                                                     (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1997
                                                                      in    Case C-341/96: Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
                                                                      Directive 93/36/EEC Ð Failure to transpose within the
                       (Fourth Chamber)                                                     prescribed period)
                     of 16 December 1997                                                       (98/C 55/14)
in Case C-325/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): FaÂbrica de Queijo
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Eru Portuguesa Ld..a v. Subdirector-Geral das AlfaÃndegas;
            joined as a party: MinisteÂrio PuÂblico (1)
(Inward processing relief arrangements Ð Special                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
arrangements for milk sector products Ð Extension of the                       published in the European Court Reports)
                     time-limit for export)
                          (98/C 55/13)                                In Case C-341/96: Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities (Agent: Claudia Schmidt) v. Federal
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)                     Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Bernd
                                                                      Kloke) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing to
                                                                      adopt within the prescribed period all the laws and
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        regulations necessary to comply with Council Directive
          published in the European Court Reports)                    93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for
                                                                      the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993,
In Case C-325/96: reference to the Court under Article 177            p. 1) and, in the alternative, by failing to notify the
of the EC Treaty from the Supremo Tribunal                            Commission immediately of the measures adopted in


title: Case C-492/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 November 2014  — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaams Gewest, Inter-Energa and Others

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 November 2014 — Essent Belgium NV v Vlaams Gewest, Inter-Energa and Others
   (Case C-492/14)
   (2015/C 034/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Essent Belgium NV

      Defendants: Vlaams Gewest, Inter-Energa, IVEG, Infrax West, Provinciale Brabantse Energiemaatschappij CVBA (PBE), Vlaamse Regulator van de Electriciteits- en Gasmarkt (VREG)

      Other parties: Intercommunale Maatschappij voor Energievoorziening Antwerpen (IMEA), Intercommunale Maatschappij voor Energievoorziening in West- en Oost-Vlaanderen (IMEWO), Intercommunale Vereniging voor Energielevering in Midden-Vlaanderen (Intergem), Intercommunale Vereniging voor de Energiedistributie in de Kempen en het Antwerpse (IVEKA), Iverlek, Gaselwest CVBA, Sibelgas CVBA

      Questions referred

               1)

               Should Article 28 and Article 30 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community be interpreted as precluding a regulation of a Member State, in the present case the Flemish Decreet van 17 juli 2000 houdende de organisatie van de elektriciteitsmarkt (Decree of 17 July 2000 on the organisation of the electricity market) read in conjunction with the Decision of the Flemish Government of 4 April 2003‘amending the Decision of the Flemish Government of 28 September 2001 promoting the production of electricity from renewable energy sources’ and restricting free distribution to the feed-in of electricity produced by the generating installations connected to the distribution systems in the Flemish Region and excluding electricity from generating installations which are not connected to distribution systems in the Flemish Region?

               2)

               Should Article 28 and Article 30 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community be interpreted as precluding a regulation of a Member State, in the present case the Flemish Decreet van 17 juli 2000 houdende de organisatie van de elektriciteitsmarkt (Decree of 17 July 2000 on the organisation of the electricity market) read in conjunction with the Decision of 5 March 2004 promoting the production of electricity from renewable energy sources, as applied by the VREG, which restricts free distribution to the electricity in generating installations which feed directly into a distribution system in Belgium and excludes from free distribution the electricity in generating installations which do not feed directly into a distribution system in Belgium?

               3)

               Is a national rule as referred to in sub-question 1 and sub-question 2 above compatible with the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination as embodied inter alia in Article 12 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community and [Article 3(1) and Article 3(4)] of the then Directive 2003/54/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 176, p. 37.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 October 2000 in Case T-360/99: Community Concepts AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — "Investorworld" — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character)

text:
C 108/18               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.4.2001
4.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
5.    Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                 of 26 October 2000
      (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
                                                                          in Case T-360/99: Community Concepts AG v Office for
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.                                                                          designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                          (Community trade mark — ‘Investorworld’ — Absolute
                                                                                ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character)
                                                                                (2001/C 108/31)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          In Case T-360/99: Community Concepts AG, formerly Touch-
                                                                          down Gesellschaft für erfolgsorientiertes Marketing mbH,
                       of 26 October 2000                                 established in Munich, Germany, represented by F. Bahr and
                                                                          F. Cordt-Terzi, of the Munich Bar, with an address for service
                                                                          in Luxembourg at the Chambers of N. Decker, 16 Avenue
in Case T-345/99: Harbinger Corporation v Office for                      Marie-Thérèse, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von
                       Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                Mühlendahl, D. Schennen, and E. Joly) — application for
                                                                          annulment of the decision of the third Board of Appeal of the
(Community trade mark — The term TRUSTEDLINK —                            Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks
Absolute ground for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation               and designs) of 15 October 1999 (Case R 204/1999-3) refusing
                          (EC) No 40/94)                                  registration of the word ‘Investorworld’ as a Community trade
                                                                          mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
                                                                          composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and
                         (2001/C 108/30)                                  P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Regis-
                                                                          trar, has given a judgment on 26 October 2000 in which it:
                   (Language of the case: English)                        1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                          2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-345/99: Harbinger Corporation, established in
Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, represented by
                                                                          (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.00.
R. Collin, M.-C. Mitchell and É. Logeais, of the Paris Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Decker and Braun, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse, against Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: J. Miranda de Sousa and A. Di Carlo
) — application for annulment of the decision of 17 September
1999 of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                           ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Designs) (Case R 163/1998-3) refusing the registration of the
term TRUSTEDLINK as a Community trade mark — the Court                                         of 28 November 2000
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
President, R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges;                      in Case T-172/99: Francesca Pentericci v Commission of
G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                                  the European Communities (1)
judgment on 26 October 2000, in which it:
                                                                          (Competition — Non-admission to the tests — Conditions
1.    Dismisses the application;                                          of admission — Professional experience — Candidate’s file
                                                                                — Action manifestly unfounded in law)
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/32)
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          In Case T-172/99: Francesca Pentericci, residing at Jesi (Italy),
                                                                          represented by M. Pentericci, of the Ancona Bar, with an


5.9.98                EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                              C 278/33
       Removal from the register of Case C-21/98 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-123/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/63)                                                    (98/C 278/67)
By order of 8 May 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                 By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-21/98: Commission of
                                                                 removal from the register of Case C-123/96: Kingdom of
the European Communities v. Ireland.
                                                                 Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (1)
                        (98/C 278/64)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-199/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 278/68)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
the removal from the register of Case C-277/96 (reference        By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of
for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landes-             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
arbeitsgericht): Hans-Jörg Dick v. EB-Schulungs-Gesell-          removal from the register of Case C-199/96: Kingdom of
schaft mbH (in liquidation).                                     Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 318, 26.10.1996.                                        (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
       Removal from the register of Case C-40/97 (1)
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-299/97 (1)
                        (98/C 278/65)
                                                                                (98/C 278/69)
By order of 14 May 1998 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                  By order of 20 May 1998 the President of the Court of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
of Case C-40/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling              removal from the register of Case C-299/97: Commission
from the Sozialgericht, Hamburg): Peter Michael Jordy            of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic.
v. Techniker Krankenkasse and Techniker Krankenkasse
Pflegeversicherung.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                       Removal from the register of Case C-282/97 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-11/96 (1)                                     (98/C 278/70)
                        (98/C 278/66)
                                                                 By order of 25 May 1998 the President of the Court of
By order of 19 May 1998 the President of the Court of            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the              removal from the register of Case C-282/97: Commission
removal from the register of Case C-11/96: Kingdom of            of the European Communities v. French Republic.
Spain v. Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.


title: Case T-348/99: Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia, Bizkaiko Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.3.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 79/35
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Pleas in law and main arguments
— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1999 in so far              The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
    as it regards the reduction of the corporation tax applicable        put forward in Case T-346/99 Diputación Foral de Alava v
    to newly created undertakings, provided for in Article 26            Commission.
    of Provincial Law of Gipuzkoa No 7/1996, as State aid
    within the meaning of Article 87 EC;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Action brought on 8 December 1999 by Miroslav Misko-
                                                                                vic against the Council of the European Union
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
put forward in Case T-346/99 Diputación Foral de Alava v
Commission.                                                                                (Case T-349/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 79/75)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities on 8 December 1999 by Miroslav Miskovic,
Action brought on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio
                                                                         represented by Nicolas Rollason and Tim Eicke with an address
Histórico de Bizkaia, Bizkaiko Foru Aldundia — Diputa-
                                                                         for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss
ción Foral de Bizkaia against the Commission of the
                                                                         & Prussen, 2 place Winston Churchill.
                     European Communities
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case T-348/99)
                                                                         — declare void the Council Decision 1999/612/CFSP;
                          (2000/C 79/74)
                                                                         — order the Council to pay the applicant’s costs.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                The contested Council decision, which implements Common
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Position 1999/318/CFSP concerning additional restrictive
European Communities on 6 December 1999 by the Territorio                measures against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, includes,
Histórico de Bizkaia, Bizkaiko Foru Aldundia — Diputación              inter alia, the applicant on a list of persons being subject to an
Foral de Bizkaia, Bizkaia (Spain) represented by Antonio Creus           obligation of non-admission in the territories of the Member
Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of the Barcelona and              States.
Madrid Bars respectively, with an address for service in Brussels
at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados, 60 Avenue de
                                                                         The applicant challenges the choice of legal base by the
Cortenbergh.
                                                                         Council. Since the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty
                                                                         measures concerning immigration and asylum policy fell
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              within the exclusive competence under Title IV EC. By basing
                                                                         the contested decision on Title V EU the Council had therefore
                                                                         based its actions on the wrong legal base. Furthermore, by
— annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1999 in so far              imposing the obligation of non-admission in the legislative
    as it regards the reduction of the corporation tax applicable        form of a decision, the Council chose an legal instrument
    to newly created undertakings, provided for in Article 26            which in the present context was neither provided for in
    of Provincial Law of Bizkaia No 3/1996, as State aid within          Title V EU nor in Title IV EC.
    the meaning of Article 87 EC;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-327/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 May 2008 — SNIV v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Starting point — Publication of a brief notice in the Official Journal — Internet site — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/34

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 May 2008 — SNIV v Commission
   (Case T-327/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Time-limit for instituting proceedings - Starting point - Publication of a brief notice in the Official Journal - Internet site - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 171/62)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Syndicat national de l'industrie des viandes (SNIV) (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Coutrelis and S. Henneresse, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the form of order sought by the defendant: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, Agent)
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission Decision C(2004) 936 final of 30 March 2004 in relation to the aid measures planned by the French authorities to finance the public rendering service (State aid No 515/2003 — France)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Syndicat national de l'industrie des viandes shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission.

               3.

               The French Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case C-11/17: Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Aue, Zweigstelle Stollberg — Germany) — Thomas Hübner v LVM Lebensversicherungs AG

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Aue, Zweigstelle Stollberg — Germany) — Thomas Hübner v LVM Lebensversicherungs AG
   (Case C-11/17) (1)

   (2017/C 202/25)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.4.2017.