title: Action brought on 2 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-404/97)

text:
C 41/10               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.2.98
On a proper construction of Article 52 of the EC Treaty            The continued failure by the Portuguese Republic to fulfil
and, as the case may be, Article 92(1), do those provisions        its obligations under the abovementioned Decision entails,
preclude legislation, affecting a territory within an              at the same time, infringement of Article 93(3) of the
autonomous community of a Member State, on urgent                  Treaty, since Portugal continues not to comply with the
fiscal measures to aid investment and stimulate economic           suspensory effect of the aforementioned Decision which is
activity, which may benefit taxable persons who pay tax            intended to prevent the payment of aid incompatible with
exclusively to the tax authorities for that territory or are       the common market and, indirectly, of Article 93(2),
resident there for tax purposes and whose volume of                which provides for the adoption of decisions requiring the
transactions in that autonomous community preceding tax            abolition of incompatible aid.
year exceeds 25 % of their total volume of transactions,
and which does not include among those to whom those
measures apply other natural and legal persons resident in         (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997, p. 14.
the State itself or in another Member State of the
European Community?
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
                                                                   Bremen by order of that court of 7 October 1997 in the
Action brought on 2 December 1997 by the Commission                case of Mövenpick Deutschland GmbH für das
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                 Gastgewerbe, (formerly Deutsche EIG' Einkaufs- und
                           Republic                                Importgesellschaft für das Gastgewerbe mbH) against
                       (Case C-404/97)                                                 Hauptzollamt Bremen
                         (98/C 41/18)                                                     (Case C-405/97)
                                                                                (98/C 41/19)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 2 December 1997 by the Commission of the European               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Communities, represented by Dimitris Triantafyllou and             European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its Legal Service, acting as            (Finance Court), Bremen of 7 October 1997, received at
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           the Court Registry on 3 December 1997, for a preliminary
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,           ruling in the case of Mövenpick Deutschland GmbH
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                          für das Gastgewerbe, (formerly Deutsche EIG' Einkaufs-
                                                                   und Importgesellschaft für das Gastgewerbe mbH) v.
                                                                   Hauptzollamt Bremen on the following questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   1. Is the Common Customs Tariff in the version
1. declare that, by failing to abolish and recover, within              contained in Annex I to Commission Regulation
    the prescribed period, the aid from which EPAC                      (EEC) No 2551/93 of 10 August 1993 (OJ L 241,
    (Empresa para a AgroalimentacËaÄo e Cereais, SA)                    27.9.1993, p. 1) amending Annex I to Council
    unduly benefited, the Portuguese Republic has failed                Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and
    to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and, in               statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
    particular, under Commission Decision C(97) 2130 of                 Tariff (Combined Nomenclature 1994) to be
    9 July 1997;                                                        interpreted so that dried walnut pieces imported from
                                                                        a non-member country, which were stored deep-frozen
                                                                        in a customs warehouse in the Community and
2. order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                      subsequently presented for admission to free
                                                                        circulation in a thawed condition, are to be classified
                                                                        under heading No 0802?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   2. If not:
Under Articles 189 and 191 of the EC Treaty, the
abovementioned Commission Decision should have been
implemented by the Portuguese Republic, even if it did
have doubts concerning its legality. In Case C-330/97 (1)               Was Article 522(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
the Portuguese Republic did not claim that it was                       No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993,
absolutely impossible to implement the Decision, given                  p. 1), which has since been replaced by the new
that the fact that the undertaking was being wound up                   version of Article 522 introduced by Commission
(which as not relied upon in that respect) did not in any               Regulation (EEC) No 3254/94 of 19 December 1994
event constitute an insurmountable difficulty.                          (OJ L 346, 31.12.1994, p. 1), inoperative?


title: Action brought on 1 July 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-227/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96        1 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 269/7
Action brought on 1 July 1996 by the Commission of the                      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                       92/65/EEC ( 1 ) of 13 July 1992 laying down animal
                        ( Case C-226/96 )                                   health requirements governing trade in and imports into
                                                                            the Community of animals, semen , ova and embryos not
                          ( 96/C 269/ 17
                                                                            subject to animal health requirements laid down in
                                                                            specific Community rules referred to in Annex A ( I ) to
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                  Directive 90/425/EEC ( 2 ), the Hellenic Republic is in
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 July                  breach of its obligations under the Treaty and that
1996 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         Directive ,
represented by Maria Kontou-Durande and Carmel
O'Reilly, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also             — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
of the Commission 's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty
— declare that, by failing to adopt, or communicate to the            establishing the European Community, a directive is to be
     Commission, within the period prescribed, the laws,              binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
    regulations or administrative provisions necessary to             State to which it is addressed . Under the first paragraph of
    comply with Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June               Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States are to take all
     1990 on package travel , package holidays and package            appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to
    tours ('), the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its              ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
    obligations under the Treaty and that Directive,                  or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
                                                                      Community . Hitherto the Hellenic Republic has not
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .                      informed the Commission of the adoption of the laws,
                                                                      regulations or administrative provisions adapting Greek
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   legislation to the Directive in question .
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be             (') OJ No L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 54 .
binding, as to the result to be achieved , upon each Member           ( 2 ) OJ No L 224 , 18 . 8 . 1990 , p . 29 .
State to which it is addressed . Under the first paragraph of
Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States are to take all
appropriate measures , whether general or particular , to
ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
Community. Hitherto the Hellenic Republic has not
informed the Commission of the adoption of the laws ,
regulations or administrative provisions adapting Greek               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del Giudice
legislation to the Directive in question .                            Conciliatore di Milano by order of that court of 25 June
                                                                      1996 in the case of Aprile SRL against Amministrazione
(') OJ No L 158 , 23 . 6 . 1990 , p . 59 .                                                         delle Finanze
                                                                                ( Case C-228/96 )
                                                                                96/C 269/ 19 )
Action brought on 1 July 1996 by the Commission of the                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 European Communities by order of Ufficio del Giudice
                          Case C-227/96                               Conciliatore di Milano ( Office of the Judge-Conciliator,
                                                                      Milan ) on the following questions :
                          ( 96/C 269/ 18 )
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             1 . Do the principles of legal certainty , effective protection
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 July                  of rights arising under Community law and
19 96 by the Commission of the European Communities,                        non-discrimination as regards the protection in damages
represented by Maria Kontou-Durande, of its Legal Service ,                 of the aforesaid rights ( according to which the
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                  procedural conditions of domestic law must not be less
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission 's Legal                    favourable and , in any event, must not make it
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                         excessively difficult to exercise such rights ), as
                                                                            formulated in the case-law of the Court of Justice ,
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                preclude the introduction of national rules , such as those
                                                                            laid down in the first paragraph of Article 29 of Law
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the period                       No 428 of 29 December 1990 , which , whilst it is
    prescribed , the laws, regulations or administrative                    apparently formulated as an interpretative provision


title: Case C-476/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ministarstvo pomorstva, prometa i infrastrukture — Uprava zračnog prometa, elektroničkih komunikacija i pošte (Croatia) lodged on 30 August 2016 — Hrvatska agencija za civilno zrakoplovstvo v Air Serbia A.D. Beograd, and Dane Kondič, direktor Air Serbia A.D. Beograd

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ministarstvo pomorstva, prometa i infrastrukture — Uprava zračnog prometa, elektroničkih komunikacija i pošte (Croatia) lodged on 30 August 2016 — Hrvatska agencija za civilno zrakoplovstvo v Air Serbia A.D. Beograd, and Dane Kondič, direktor Air Serbia A.D. Beograd
   (Case C-476/16)
   (2016/C 419/41)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Ministarstvo pomorstva, prometa i infrastrukture — Uprava zračnog prometa, elektroničkih komunikacija i pošte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hrvatska agencija za civilno zrakoplovstvo

      Defendant: Air Serbia A.D. Beograd, and Dane Kondič, direktor Air Serbia A.D. Beograd

      Question referred

   Is the practice of an airline of a signatory to the Multilateral Agreement on the Establishment of a European common aviation area (ECAA) which consists in providing commercial air transportation services departing from one of the Member States of the European Union, via its country of origin as a transfer point where passengers and their luggage are transhipped to another aircraft belonging to the same company, and travelling to a Member State of the European Union or a third country on the basis of an autonomous transport ticket which indicates two different flight numbers consistent with the interpretation of EU law in general and with the interpretation of Article 3(1)(a)(i) of Protocol VI included in Annex V of the ECAA in particular?


title: Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-315/95)

text:
25 . 11 . 95             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 315 / 11
Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of                           provisions necessary to comply with Directives
   the European Communities against the Italian Republic                        92/45/EEC ( ] ), 92/46/EEC ( 2 ), 92/65/EEC ( 3 ), 92/88/
                           ( Case C-3 13/95                                     EEC (4 ), 92/116/EEC ( 5 ), 92/117/EEC ( 6 ) and 92/118/
                                                                                EEC ( 7), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                              ( 95/C 315/20 )
                                                                                obligations under those Directives and the EC Treaty .
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                 2 . Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities , represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                  Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                      is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                                State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
                                                                          an obligation to comply with the time limits prescribed in
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              directives for their transposition . In the case of Directives
                                                                          92/45/EEC, 92/46/EEC, 92/65/EEC, 92/116/EEC, 92/ 117/
1 . Declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                   EEC and 92/ 118/EEC, the periods prescribed expired on
       period the laws, regulations and administrative                    1 January 1994 and, in the case of Directive 92/88/EEC, it
       provisions necessary to comply with Directives                     expired on 31 December 1993 ; in each case, the Italian
       92/66/EEC C ) and 92/119/EEC ( 2 ), the Italian Republic           Republic had failed to adopt the provision necessary to
       has failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives        comply with the Directive in question by the required
                                                                          date .
       and the EC Treaty .
2 . Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                         0)   OJ   No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 35 .
                                                                          (2)  OJ   No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                          (3)  OJ   No  L 268 , 14 . 9 . 1992 , p . 54 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       (4)  OJ   No  L 321 , 6 . 11 . 1992 , p . 24 .
                                                                          (s)  OJ   No  L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 1 .
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive             (6)   OJ  No  L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 38 .
is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member              (7)   OJ  No  L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 49 .
State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
an obligation to comply with the time limits prescribed in
directives for their transposition .
The prescribed periods expired on 1 October 1993 , at which
time the Italian Republic had failed to adopt the provisions              Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of
necessary for implementation of the Directives referred to in                the European Communities against the Italian Republic
the forms of order sought by the Commission .                                                          ( Case C-3 15 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95 /C 315/22 )
 (') OJ No L 260 , 5 . 9 . 1992 , p . 1 .
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p . 69 .                              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                           3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
                                                                           Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Action brought on 3 October 1995 by the Commission of                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
    the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                            ( Case C-3 14/95 )                             The applicant claims that the Court should :
                               ( 95/C 315/21 )
                                                                           1 . Declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
                                                                                periods the laws, regulations and administrative
 An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                       provisions necessary to comply with Directives
 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                             93/48/EEC {'), 93/49/EEC ( 2 ), 93/52/EEC ( 3 ), 93/61 /
  3 October 1995 by the Commission of the European                               EEC (4 ) and 93/85/EEC ( 5 ), the Italian Republic has
  Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal                            failed to fulfil its obligations under those Directives and
 Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                        the EC Treaty .
  Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                 2 . Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  1 . Declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                  Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
        periods the laws, regulations and administrative                    is binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
 ---pagebreak--- No C 315/ 12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25 . 11 . 95
State to which it is addressed, places Member States under               IV . Where the infringement referred to in III above consists
an obligation to comply with the time limits prescribed in                      in the submission of samples with a view to the
directives for their transposition. In the case of Directives                   registration of a medicinal product, as referred to in I
93/48/EEC, 93/49/EEC and 93/61 /EEC, the periods                                above, and in consequence thereof a judicial
prescribed expired on 31 December 1993 , in respect of                          prohibition of the kind referred to in III above is
Directive 93/52/EEC, on 1 January 1994 and, in the case of                      imposed for a period which exceeds the maximum
Directive 93/85/EEC, on 15 November 1993 ; in each case ,                       period prescribed by Directives 65/65/EEC ( j ) and
the Italian Republic had failed to adopt the provisions                         75/319/EEC ( 2) for the registration of medicinal
necessary to comply with the Directive in question by the                       products, does the fact that the duration of the
required date .                                                                 prohibition exceeds that maximum render the
                                                                                prohibition incompatible to that extent with
(1)  OJ No  L  250 , 7 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                    Community law and, if so, does that mean that the
(2)  OJ No  L  250,  7 . 10, 1993 , p . 9 .                                     person on whom the prohibition is imposed can invoke
(■') OJ No  L  175 , 19 . 7 . 1993 , p . 21 .                                   that incompatibility, by virtue of Community law, as
(4)  OJ No  L  250,  7. 10 . 1993 , p . 19 .
(s)  OJ No  L  259 , 18 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .
                                                                                against the former proprietor of the patent ?
                                                                         (') OJ , English Special Edition 1965— 1966 , p. 20 .
                                                                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 147, p . 13 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by judgment of that court of 29 September
1995 in the case of Generics BV v. Smith Kline & French
                        Laboratories Limited                             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo
                                                                         Social No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, by order of that court
                           ( Case C-3 16/95 )                            of 21 September 1995 in the case of Jose Ferreiro Alvite v.
                             ( 95/C 315 /23 )                            Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional de la
                                                                                Seguridad Social
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                ( Case C-320/95 )
European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) of                                                  ( 95/C 315/24 )
29 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
Registry on 5 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
case of Generics BV v. Smith Kline & French Laboratories                 European Communities by an order of the Juzgado de lo
Limited on the following questions :                                     Social ( Social Court ) No 1 , Santiago de Compostela, of
                                                                         21 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
   I. Does a rule of national law which confers on the                   Registry on 16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the
      proprietor of a patent in respect of certain medicinal             case of Jose Ferreiro Alvite v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo
      products the right to oppose, during the currency of               and Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social on three
      that patent, the submission by another person of                   questions, which are identical to those referred in Case
      samples of the patented medicinal products ( or of                 C-88/95 ( OJ No C 137 of 3 June 1995 , p. 12 ).
      medicinal products produced in accordance with the
      patented process ) to the authority responsible for the
      registration of medicinal products, have to be regarded
      as a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative
      restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 30            Appeal brought on 16 October 1995 by Stichting
      of the EC Treaty ?                                                 Greenpeace Council ( Greenpeace International ), Domingo
                                                                         Viera González, Pablo Guedes García, José Ignacio Trojaola
 II . If so, is that measure covered by the exception laid               Chávez, Aurora González González, Pedro Melián Castro,
      down in Article 36 of the EC Treaty in respect of                  Caridad Sánchez Artiles, José Juan Melián Melián, Carmen
      restrictions which are justified on the ground of the              Guadalupe Gómez Castro, Clara Donate Hernández,
      protection of industrial property ?                                Balbina Martín Espinóla, José Hernández Morín, Germán
                                                                         Peña Hernández, Antonio Cabrera Expósito, Valentín
III. Where, during the currency of a patent, an                          Hernández Vaquero, Peter Reinhard, Julio González
      infringement of that patent is committed under                     Domínguez, Tagorar Ecologista Alternativo and Comisíon
      national law and the person committing that                        Canaria contra la Contaminácion against the order made on
      infringement or a third person is liable to profit from            9 August 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
      the infringement following the expiry of the patent, or            Instance of the European Communities in Case T-5 85/93
      the proprietor of the patent is liable to suffer some              between Stichting Greenpeace Council ( Greenpeace
      disadvantage as a result of the infringement following             International ) and 18 others and the Commission of the
      the expiry of the patent, does a judicial prohibition              European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of
      imposed in order to prevent that potential harm which                                                Spain
      restrains, for a specified period after the expiry of the
      patent, the placing on the market of products which                                        ( Case C-321 /95 P )
      were protected by the patent during its currency,                                               ( 95/C 315/25 )
      constitute a measure which is prohibited by Article 30
      of the EC Treaty and which is not covered by the                   An appeal against the order made on 9 August 1995 by the
      exception contained in Article 36 of the EC Treaty ?               First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European


title: Action brought on 6 March 1997 by B. J. G. Oude Kotte against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-53/97)

text:
10 . 5 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 142/25
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest          Action brought on 6 March 1997 by B. J. G. Oude Kotte
       thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 9 May                against the Council of the European Union and the
       1992 until the date of the payment in full;                                 Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-53/97 )
( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                                                         ( 97/C 142/52 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                  An action against the Council of the European Union and
Case T-50/97 (').                                                       the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
(') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
                                                                        Communities on 6 March 1997 by B. J. G. Oude Kotte, of
                                                                        Fleringen ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker
                                                                        Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
                                                                        of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
                                                                        Guillaume .
Action brought on 6 March 1997 by P. J. M. Biermans                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
against the Council of the European Union and the
            Commission of the European Communities                      ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
                           ( Case T-52/97)                                     applicant the sum of Fl 279 389, together with interest
                             ( 97/C 142/51 )                                   thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
                                                                               1992 until the date of payment in full ;
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                               in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
                                                                               applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
An action against the Council of the European Union and                        think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 45 349
the Commission of the European Communities was                                 ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                     Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 ), together with interest
Communities on 6 March 1997 by P. J. M. Biermans, of                           thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May
Herkenbosch (Netherlands ), represented by E. Fl .                             1992 until the date of the payment in full;
Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J.
van Oers, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in               ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs.
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
 Guillaume .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                         Case T-50/97 (').
 ( a ) primarily: order the Community to pay to the
        applicant the sum of Fl 60 863 , together with interest          (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .
        thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from 19 May
        1992 until the date of payment in full;
        in the alternative: order the Community to pay the
        applicant such sum as the Court in its wisdom shall
        think fit, amounting to not less than Fl 22 390 ,                Action brought on 6 March 1997 by H. J. Leemkuil
        ( namely, the amount resulting from the application of           against the Council of the European Union and the
        Regulation ( EEC) No 2187/93 ), together with interest                      Commission of the European Communities
        thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum from 19 May                                            ( Case T-54/97 )
        1992 until the date of the payment in full;                                                   ( 97/C 142/53 )
 ( b ) order the Community to pay the costs .                                              (Language of the case: Dutch)
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                         the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                          brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   Communities on 6 March 1997 by H. J. Leemkuil , of
 Case T-50/97 (').
                                                                         Winterswijk Miste (Netherlands ), represented by E. H.
                                                                          Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J.
  (') Page 24 of this Official Journal .                                  van Oers, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden , 62 Avenue
                                                                          Guillaume .


title: Case T-64/01: Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie GmbH against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 173/34              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.6.2001
Action brought on 13 March 2001 by Marie-Josée Bollen-                   Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Afrikanische Frucht-
            dorff against the European Parliament                        Compagnie GmbH against the Council of the European
                                                                         Union and the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-60/01)
                                                                                (Case T-64/01)
                        (2001/C 173/61)                                                           (2001/C 173/62)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: German)
An action against the European Parliament was brought before             An action against the Council of the European Union and the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  Commission of the European Communities was brought
on 13 March 2000 by Marie-Josée Bollendorff, residing at                 before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
Bertrange (Luxembourg), represented by Laurent Mosar, avo-               on 19 March 2001 by Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie GmbH,
cat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                          established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by Gerrit
                                                                         Schohe, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                         bourg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision by which the appointing authority
      took the view that the applicant’s absence from 21 March           —     order the defendants to pay to the applicant
      2000 to 30 April 2000 was irregular and deducted 194                     EUR 1 358 228 together with interest thereon at the rate
      working hours from her annual leave entitlement;                         of 3,75 % from the date of pronouncement of judgment
                                                                               and reasonable compensation for the inflation which has
                                                                               occurred since 1 January 1999, at the further rate of at
—     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.                          least 1,1 % per annum on EUR 1 358 228 ;
                                                                         —     declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate the
                                                                               applicant for all further loss and damage suffered or to be
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                suffered by it as a result of Regulations (EC)
                                                                               Nos 1637/98 and 2362/98 and, in particular, the rules
                                                                               contained therein;
The applicant’s incapacity for work, certified by two doctors,
was contested by the institution’s medical officer. Those two            —     reserve its decision as to costs.
doctors then confirmed their certificates, and the applicant
was absent during the period covered by the certificates. Later
on, the applicant discovered that the time for which she had
been absent during the period in question had been deducted              Pleas in law and main arguments
from her annual leave entitlement.
                                                                         The applicant has for many years sold bananas from third
                                                                         countries to customers in Austria, Finland and Sweden.
In support of her claim, the applicant maintains that the
deduction decision was adopted in breach of Articles 59 and
60 [of the Staff Regulations] and that it therefore has no legal         The action concerns the calculation of the applicant’s reference
basis whatever.                                                          quantities for 1999. According to the applicant, that calcu-
                                                                         lation is characterised by three special features which derogate
                                                                         from the rules governing the organisation of the market
                                                                         applying in respect of the years prior to 1999, and as a result
According to the applicant, no decision concerning a
                                                                         of which the market operators existing in the Community up
deduction from her annual leave entitlement was notified to
                                                                         until 31 December 1994 have been placed at a disadvantage,
her by the head of the Personnel Division, and the appointing
                                                                         whilst advantageous treatment has been afforded to operators
authority at no time communicated to the applicant any
                                                                         in the new Member States. First, the rule governing the
decision which would have enabled her to comment on the
                                                                         determination of the reference period has been changed.
fact that the certificates were contested. Consequently, the
                                                                         Next, in calculating the reference quantities for 1999, the
European Parliament has infringed Article 25 of the Staff
                                                                         Community proceeded on the basis of excessively high quanti-
Regulations.
                                                                         ties in so far as concerns market operators in Austria, Finland
                                                                         and Sweden. Lastly, although the reference quantities for 1999
                                                                         should have been calculated in accordance with Articles 3 and
                                                                         5 of Regulation No 1442/93 (1), they were in fact calculated in
                                                                         accordance with the criterion of the so-called ‘actual importer’.
 ---pagebreak--- 16.6.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 173/35
The applicant claims that those three special features have                 Action brought on 19 March 2001 by Internationale
resulted in the applicant and operators in a similar position               Fruchtimportgesellschaft Weichert & Co. against the
being granted lower reference quantities than they would have               Council of the European Union and the Commission of
received if the rules governing the organisation of the market                                 the European Communities
had continued to be applied without being changed.
                                                                                (Case T-65/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/63)
The applicant seeks, by way of compensation, to be placed in
the position in which it would have been had its reference
quantity for 1999 been calculated in accordance with the                                        (Language of the case: German)
unchanged rules governing the organisation of the market.
                                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                            before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
In support of its claims, it asserts that the Community has                 on 19 March 2001 by Internationale Fruchtimportgesellschaft
infringed Article 6 of Regulation No 1924/95 (2) and the                    Weichert & Co., established in Hamburg (Germany), represent-
principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, by failing          ed by Gerrit Schohe, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service
to determine the applicant’s rights of access to the market in              in Luxembourg.
1999 in accordance with Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation
No 1442/93. In addition, it maintains that the Community has                The applicant claims that the Court should:
failed, in its formulation of the prohibition of retroactive effect,
to respect the requirement of legal certainty, in that it has               —     order the defendants to pay to the applicant
retroactively applied the distribution formula prescribed by                      EUR 3 604 232 together with interest thereon at the rate
Regulation No 2362/98 (3) to reference quantities from the                        of 2,9 % from the date of pronouncement of judgment
years 1994 to 1996.                                                               and reasonable compensation for the inflation which has
                                                                                occurred since 1 January 1999, at the further rate of at
                                                                                least 1,1 % per annum on EUR 3 604 232 ;
                                                                            —     declare that the defendants are obliged to compensate the
In addition, the special rules applying to operators in the new
                                                                                applicant for all further loss and damage suffered or to be
Member States infringe the prohibition of discrimination laid
                                                                                suffered by it as a result of Regulations (EC)
down in the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC;
                                                                                Nos 1637/98 and 2362/98 and, in particular, the rules
moreover, no adequate statement of reasons has been given.
                                                                                contained therein;
                                                                            —     reserve its decision as to costs.
Lastly, the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade
Organisation has declared that the system for the allocation of             Pleas in law and main arguments
import licences, as laid down in Regulations Nos 1637/98 and
2362/98, is incompatible in certain essential respects with the             The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
law governing the World Trade Organisation. In the applicant’s              advanced in Case T-64/01 (Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie
view, the Community has failed to respect the fact that it is               GmbH v Council and Commission).
bound by that decision.
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 of 10 June 1993
    laying down detailed rules for the application of the arrangements
    for importing bananas into the Community (OJ 1993 L 142, p. 6).         Action brought on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1924/95 of 3 August 1995                             Tralli against the European Central Bank
    laying down transitional measures for the application of the tariff
    quota arrangements for imports of bananas as a result of the                                      (Case T-69/01)
    accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (OJ 1995 L 185, p. 24).
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998                                         (2001/C 173/64)
    laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into
    the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            An action against the European Central Bank was brought
                                                                            before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                            on 23 March 2001 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of Nidderau
                                                                            (Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and
                                                                            Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte.


title: Case T-379/08: Action brought on 11 September 2008 — Mustang v OHIM

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/35

         Action brought on 11 September 2008 — Mustang v OHIM
   (Case T-379/08)
   (2008/C 313/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Mustang-Bekleidungswerke GmbH + Co. KG (Künzelsau, Germany) (represented by: A. Klett and K. Weimer, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Decathlon SA (Villeneuve d'Ascq, France)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2008 in Case R 859/2007-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, including the applicant's costs in both proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Mustang

      Community trade mark concerned: Representation of a wavy line for goods and services in Classes 3, 18 and 25 (Application No 4 081 352)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Decathlon SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Existing national and international figurative mark constituted by the representation of a white wavy line on a black background, for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, because there are no aural, visual and conceptual similarities between the opposing marks that could give rise to a likelihood of confusion.


title: Case T-295/16: Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — SymbioPharm v EMA (Action for annulment — Medicinal products for human use — Commencement of the procedure for referral to the EMA — Articles 31 to 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC — Medicinal product Symbioflor 2 and medicinal products with similar designations — Act not open to challenge — Preparatory act — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/45

         Order of the General Court of 7 March 2017 — SymbioPharm v EMA
   (Case T-295/16) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Medicinal products for human use - Commencement of the procedure for referral to the EMA - Articles 31 to 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC - Medicinal product Symbioflor 2 and medicinal products with similar designations - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 144/61)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: SymbioPharm GmbH (Herborn, Germany) (represented by: A. Sander, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: T. Jabłoński, N. Rampal Olmedo, I. Ratescu, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU asking for annulment of the letter from the EMA of 1 April 2016 to initiate a referral procedure referred to in Articles 32 to 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), concerning medicinal product Symbioflor 2 and similarly named medicinal products following a notification by the Federal Republic of Germany under Article 31 of that Directive.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               SymbioPharm GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 279, 1.8.2016.


title: Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Luc Verheyden against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-167/98)

text:
5.12.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 378/25
Action brought on 12 October 1998 by Luc Verheyden                the course of, the performance by the applicant of his
  against the Commission of the European Communities              duties and, second, that the damage suffered did not
                      (Case T-167/98)                             result, either wholly or in part, from any fault or
                                                                  negligence whatever on the applicant's part.
                       (98/C 378/44)
               (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 Action brought on 16 October 1998 by Schiocchet SARL
Instance of the European Communities on 12 October                  against the Commission of the European Communities
1998 by Luc Verheyden, residing at Angera (Italy),
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an                              (Case T-169/98)
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                                     (98/C 378/45)
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  An action against the Commission of the European
Ð annul the refusal by the Financial Controller, Mr               Communities was brought before the Court of First
    Hartkamp, to sanction the payment of reimbursement            Instance of the European Communities on 16 October
    for the loss of two pairs of trousers belonging to the        1998 by Schiocchet SARL, the registered office of which is
    applicant and having a total value of ITL 370 000, the        at Beuvillers (France), representd by Pascal Barbier, of the
    said refusal, dated 27 November 1997 having been              Thionville Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    communicated to the applicant by a note of                    at the Chambers of Faltz and AssocieÂs, 6 Rue Heinrich
    19 February 1998 signed by G. Brugnoni (ref. PO 2-A/          Heine.
    No 068/98);
                                                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð annul the decision implicitly rejecting the complaint
    submitted by the applicant on 4 March 1998, which             Ð annul the provisions of Article 4(2) of Council
    was registered as having been received on 10 March                Regulation (EEC) No 684/92, inasmuch as its effect is
    1998;                                                             to promote unfair competition to the disadvantage of
                                                                      existing regular services, in particular, those provided
Ð order the defendant to pay compensation for the                     by Schiocchet SARL;
    material damage suffered in the sum of ITL 370 000
    together with interest from 23 July 1997, the date of         Ð annul classification Decision D(98)ab/g/plainte/
    the accident;                                                     Schiocchet/class-2 90176 of the Commission of
                                                                      19 August 1998.
Ð order the defendant to pay the sum of ITL 5 000 000
    by way of compensation for the non-material damage            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    suffered by the applicant;
                                                                  The applicant, a company incorporated under French law,
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs in any                has since 1990 been operating regular international
    event.                                                        services between France and Luxembourg, having been
                                                                  authorised by the competent French authorities so to do.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                  On 4 December 1996 the applicant submitted to the
The applicant suffered damage to his clothing in the              Commission a complaint concerning, first, unlawful
course of carrying out the work entrusted to him. Two             conduct on the part of SocieÂteÂ Mousset, a competitor
new pairs of trousers (each pair having a value of ITL            which had started to operate a cross-border service
185 000) were successively damaged, without any lack of           without authorisation, and, second, the development since
care or fault whatever on the applicant's part.                   1990 of anti-competitive practices as a result of the
                                                                  application of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 684/
According to the applicant, the present case does not             92. It requested the Commission, pursuant to the Treaty,
involve normal wear and tear to the trousers; instead, it         to intervene in order to ensure, first, that Community law,
concerns an accident connected with the normal                    in particular Regulation (EEC) No 684/92, was complied
performance of his duties. He pleads infringement of              with and, second, that infringements of competition rules
Articles 71 and 73 of the Staff Regulations, breach of the        of the type contained in Council Regulation (EEC)
duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of              No 1017/68 were identified and dealt with.
officials and breach of general principles of law, such as
the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations        By letter of 19 August 1998, the Commission informed,
and of the principle of equal treatment. The applicant            inter alia, the applicant that it did not regard it as
claims that the defendant wrongly refused, in breach of           appropriate to apply the safeguard clause contained in
the rules and principles referred to in his plea, to              paragraph 1.3 of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 684/
compensate him for the damage suffered by him as a                92, inasmuch as that clause cannot be applied between
result of an accident at work, since it is apparent, first,       regular services and special regular services. To apply the
that the accident indeed occurred on the occasion of, or in       safeguard clause in that way would be tantamount to


title: Case T-378/06: Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — IMI and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Copper and copper alloy fittings sector — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Fines — Relevant turnover — Leniency Notice — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Equal treatment)

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011 — IMI and Others v Commission
   (Case T-378/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copper and copper alloy fittings sector - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Fines - Relevant turnover - Leniency Notice - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Equal treatment)
   2011/C 145/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: IMI plc (Birmingham, United Kingdom); IMI Kynoch Ltd (Birmingham); Yorkshire Fittings Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom); VSH Italia Srl (Bregnano, Italy); Comap SA, formerly Aquatis France SAS (La Chapelle-Saint-Mesmin, France); and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG (Argenbühl-Eisenharz, Germany) (represented by: M. Struys and D. Arts, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Nijenhuis and V. Bottka, acting as Agents, and by S. Kinsella, Solicitor, and K. Nordlander, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings), and also, in the alternative, for a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicants in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders IMI plc, IMI Kynoch Ltd, Yorkshire Fittings Ltd, VSH Italia Srl, Comap SA and Simplex Armaturen + Fittings GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-94/00: Action brought on 18 April 2000 by Rica Foods (Free Zone) NV against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 176/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.6.2000
— Infringement of the right of operators to use their reference         Pleas in law and main arguments
    quantity to the full, as an expression of the fundamental
    right of property and free enterprise.
                                                                        In Regulation No 465/2000 the Commission states that the
— Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in so            import of sugar and mixtures of sugar and cocoa originating
    far as the Commission created supply conditions for                 in the overseas countries and territories has been increasing
    operators importing ACP bananas that were more favour-              greatly since 1997, particularly those products with EC/OCT
    able than those for traditional operators importing bananas         cumulation of origin.
    from third countries.
                                                                        According to the Commission, in recent years difficulties have
(1) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.                                           arisen on the Community sugar market. There is a surplus
(2) OJ L 293, 31.10.1998, p. 32.
                                                                        on that market. The operation of the Community market
                                                                        organisation may be greatly destabilised by those difficulties.
                                                                        For that reason it is planned to reduce the production quotas
                                                                        in the Community. The greater the import, the lower the
                                                                        production quota. The Commission has therefore decided to
                                                                        permit the EC/OCT cumulation of origin for products for a
                                                                        maximum of 3 340 tonnes (Article 1 of Regulation No
                                                                        465/2000).
Action brought on 18 April 2000 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                   The applicant states that it has had to restrict its activities
                                                                        considerably and has had to cease completely from futures
                                                                        contracts.
                         (Case T-94/00)
                        (2000/C 176/45)                                 In support of its action it submits inter alia the following pleas:
                                                                        — breach of Article 109 of the OCT Decision:
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    — factual incorrectness of the considerations on which
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                       the Commission based its decision;
European Communities on 18 April 2000 by Rica Foods (Free
Zone) NV, whose registered office is at Oranjestad (Aruba),
                                                                             — the difficulties to which the Commission refers are not
represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                                difficulties within the meaning of Article 109(1) of the
address for service at the Chambers of A. May, 398 Route
                                                                                OCT Decision;
d’Esch.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  — the restrictions laid down in the Regulation have no or
                                                                                insufficient influence on the difficulties referred to by
                                                                                the Commission;
— annul Regulation (EC) No 465/2000 (1);
— hold that the Community is responsible for the damage                 — breach of the principle of proportionality;
    suffered by the applicant because of the fact that since
    1 March 2000 the import of the products referred to in
    Regulation No 465/2000 is prevented or restricted as a              — misuse of powers;
    consequence of Regulation No 465/2000, and hold that
    the parties are to reach agreement regarding the extent of
    the damage suffered by the applicant and that in the event          — inadequate statement of reasons.
    they do not agree thereon, order that the procedure shall
    recommence within a period to be laid down by the Court
    in order to determine the extent of the damage, and order
    the Community to pay the provisionally estimated and yet            (1) Commission Regularion (EC) No 465/2000 of 29 February 2000
    to be estimated damage, in the alternative order the                    introducing safeguard measures for imports from the overseas
    Community to pay compensation to be determined equit-                   countries and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT
    ably by the Court, together with interest of 8 % per annum              cumulation of origin (OJ L 56, 1.3.2000, p. 39).
    from the date of the application until the date of payment
    in full;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.


|

Judgment of the Court of 10 December 2010 in Case E-8/10 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications)

Official Journal C 148 , 19/05/2011 P. 0003 - 0003

		Judgment of the Courtof 10 December 2010in Case E-8/10EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland(Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications)2011/C 148/03In Case E-8/10, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, all the measures necessary to fully implement into its national legislation the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson and Henrik Bull (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 10 December 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:The Court hereby:1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, all the measures necessary to fully implement the Act referred to at point 1 of Annex VII to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 63 of the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;2. orders the Republic of Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.--------------------------------------------------


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2000 in Case C-15/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen): Hans Sommer GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Bremen (Common Customs Tariff — Customs value — Cost of analysing goods — Post-clearance recovery of import duties Remission of import duties)

text:
6.1.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                  C 4/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       —    Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of
                                                                                2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                         export duties (OJ 1979 L 175, p. 1), as amended by
                                                                                Council Regulation (EEC) No 3069/86 of 7 October 1986
                                                                                (OJ 1986 L 286, p. 1),
                       of 19 October 2000
                                                                             and on the validity of Commission Decision C(95) 2325 final
in Case C-15/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     of 28 September 1995, the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
the Finanzgericht Bremen): Hans Sommer GmbH & Co.                            of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rappor-
                KG v Hauptzollamt Bremen (1)                                 teur) and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
                                                                             R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 October 2000,
(Common Customs Tariff — Customs value — Cost of                             in which it has ruled:
analysing goods — Post-clearance recovery of import duties
                   Remission of import duties)                               1.   The costs of analyses designed to establish the conformity of
                                                                                imported goods with the national legislation of the importing
                           (2001/C 4/01)                                          Member State, which the importer invoices to the buyer in
                                                                                addition to the price of the goods, must be regarded as an
                                                                                integral part of their ‘transaction value’ within the meaning of
                   (Language of the case: German)                                 Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 of
                                                                                28 May 1980 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes,
                                                                                as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3193/80 of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            8 December 1980.
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             2.   The customs authorities of a Member State must refrain from
In Case C-15/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                      post clearance recovery of duty pursuant to Article 5(2) of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht                         Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on
Bremen (Finance Court, Bremen), Germany, for a preliminary                        the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                       which have not been required of the person liable for payment
Hans Sommer GmbH &amp, Co. KG and Hauptzollamt                                    of goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation
Bremen — on the interpretation of                                                 to pay such duties, if, at a previous on-the-spot inspection of
                                                                                importations, they raised no objection to the non-inclusion of
—     Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 of                      flat-rate expenses in the customs value of similar transactions
      28 May 1980 on the valuation of goods for customs                           and it does not appear that the trader, who had complied with
      purposes (OJ 1980 L 134, p. 1), as amended by Council                       all of the provisions laid down by the rules in force as far as his
      Regulation (EEC) No 3193/80 of 8 December 1980 (OJ                          customs declaration is concerned, could have been in doubt
      1980 L 333, p. 1),                                                          about the correctness of the results of the inspection.
—     Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of
      24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import                  (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
      duties or export duties which have not been required of
      the person liable for payment on goods entered for a
      customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such
      duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1),


title: Case T -67/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of  17 January 2006  — Henkel v OHIM

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/32

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 January 2006 — Henkel v OHIM
   (Case T -67/03) (1)

   (2006/C 74/59)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 124, 24.5.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 2004 in Case T-389/02, Sergio Sandini v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials — Action for damages — Admissibility — Exposure to asbestos — Occupational disease — Damage)

text:
               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/18

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 14 October 2004
   in Case T-389/02, Sergio Sandini v Court of Justice of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Action for damages - Admissibility - Exposure to asbestos - Occupational disease - Damage)
   (2004/C 314/45)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-389/02, Sergio Sandini, an official of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, residing in Ehlange (Luxembourg), represented by J. Iturriagagoitia Bassas and K. Delvolvé, lawyers, against Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for damages for the physical harm and the non-material, professional and financial loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 October 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.


title: Case C-85/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon by judgment of that Court of 27 April 2001 in the case of Anastasia Mavrona kai Sia O.E. against Delta Etairia Simmetokhon Anonimos Etairia

text:
C 112/10                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
Despite the absence from the directive of guidelines and                 4.    If the answer is in the negative, may the courts of the
criteria for determining whether there is any need to conduct                  Member States extend the meaning of a commercial agent
an assessment of the environmental impact of a given project,                  to cover the foregoing person, by analogical application
Article 4(2) cannot be regarded as having been correctly                       of their national legislation which incorporated the
applied where there is no reasonable justification for a decision              directive into their domestic law, or is that impermissible
not to subject a project to that procedure.                                    because it runs counter to the uniformity of Community
                                                                               law?
( 1) OJ L 175 of 5.7.1985, p. 40.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ L 372 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.
                                                                         Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Polimeles
Protodikio Athinon by judgment of that Court of 27 April                                                munities
2001 in the case of Anastasia Mavrona kai Sia O.E. against
        Delta Etairia Simmetokhon Anonimos Etairia                                                   (Case C-86/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/19)
                          (Case C-85/03)
                         (2003/C 112/18)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 26 February 2003 by the Hellenic Republic,
                                                                         represented by Ekaterini Samoni-Radou and Panayiotis Milon-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   opoulos, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
European Communities by judgment of the Polimeles Protodi-               Luxembourg.
kio Athinon (Court of First Instance, Athens) of 27 April 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 26 February 2003, for a                The applicant claims that the Court should:
preliminary ruling in the case of Anastasia Mavrona kai Sia
O.E. against Delta Etairia Simmetokhon Anonimos Etairia on               1.    annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2575 final of
the following questions:                                                       17 December 2002 on a request by Greece for authoris-
                                                                               ation to use heavy fuel oils with a maximum sulphur
1.    Does the definition of a commercial agent in Article 1(2)                content of 3 % by mass in part of its territory; (1)
      of Council Directive 86/653/EEC (1) extend to a self-
      employed intermediary who purchases in his own name                2.    declare Directive 1999/32/EC inapplicable on the basis
      goods from the principal, deducting his commission from                  of Article 241 of the EC Treaty; and
      the purchase price, and subsequently sells those goods to
      third parties, but acting on behalf of the principal?              3.    order the Commission to pay the costs.
2.    If the answer is in the negative, in the present instance
      has the definition of commercial agent laid down by                Pleas in law and main arguments
      that article been laid down in contradistinction to the
      foregoing person (that is to say to a self-employed                —     Infringement of rights of defence;
      intermediary who purchases in his own name goods
      from the principal, deducting his commission from the
                                                                         —     Infringement of the principle of effectiveness (effet utile);
      purchase price, and subsequently sells those goods to
      third parties, but acting on behalf of the principal), or is
                                                                         —     Infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate
      there in fact a lacuna?
                                                                               expectations;
3.    If there is a lacuna, is it possible, on the basis of the          —     Infringement of the principle of proportionality;
      principles of equity, for the foregoing definition in
      Article 1(2) of the directive to be applied by analogy to a        —     Infringement of Article 252 EC.
      self-employed intermediary who purchases in his own
      name goods from the principal, deducting his com-
      mission from the purchase price, and subsequently sells            (1 ) OJ L 4, 9.1.2003, p. 16.
      those goods to third parties, but acting on behalf of the
      principal?


title: Case C-471/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 7 September 2015 — Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S v Skatteministeriet

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 7 September 2015 — Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-471/15)
   (2015/C 363/32)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sjelle Autogenbrug I/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Question referred

   In the circumstances of the present case, can parts from end-of-life vehicles which a VAT-registered vehicle reuse undertaking removes from a vehicle with a view to resale as spare parts be regarded as second-hand goods as referred to in Article 311(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (VAT Directive)?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 11 July 2002 in Case C-62/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)): Marks & Spencer plc v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (Sixth VAT directive — National legislation retroactively curtailing a limitation period for repayment of sums unduly paid — Compatibility with the principles of effectiveness and of the protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
28.9.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 233/5
M. Condou-Durande), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez                 let, R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),
Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von               Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rapporteur),                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,               11 July 2002, in which it has ruled:
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of
Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 July               Article 49 EC, read in the light of the fundamental right to respect
2002, in which it:                                                         for family life, is to be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances
                                                                           such as those in the main proceedings, a refusal, by the Member State
                                                                           of origin of a provider of services established in that Member State
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                who provides services to recipients established in other Member States,
                                                                           of the right to reside in its territory to that provider’s spouse, who is a
2.    Orders Unión de Pequeños Agricultores to pay the costs;              national of a third country.
3.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear
      its own costs.                                                       (1 ) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                 (Fifth Chamber)
                           11 July 2002                                                                   11 July 2002
in Case C-60/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                   in Case C-62/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Immigration Appeal Tribunal): Mary Carpenter v                         the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)):
       Secretary of State for the Home Department (1)                      Marks & Spencer plc v Commissioners of Customs &
                                                                                Excise ( 1)
(Freedom to provide services — Article 49 EC — Directive
73/148/EEC — National of a Member State established in
                                                                           (Sixth VAT directive — National legislation retroactively
that State and providing services to persons established in
                                                                           curtailing a limitation period for repayment of sums unduly
other Member States — Right of residence in that State of a                paid — Compatibility with the principles of effectiveness
           spouse who is a national of a third country)
                                                                                and of the protection of legitimate expectations)
                         (2002/C 233/07)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/08)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-60/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal (United Kingdom) for a                  In Case C-62/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                  for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
court between Mary Carpenter and Secretary of State for the                (England and Wales) in the proceedings pending before that
Home Department, on the interpretation of Article 49 EC and                court between Marks & Spencer plc and Commissioners of
Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the                         Customs & Excise, on the interpretation of Community law on
abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within                 the recovery of sums unduly paid, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to                composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
establishment and the provision of services (OJ 1973 L 172,                D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges;
p. 14), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                   L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
President, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Cham-                for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July 2002, in
bers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathe-              which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/6                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             28.9.2002
National legislation retroactively curtailing the period within which        1.     Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 of
repayment may be sought of sums paid by way of VAT collected in                     25 October 1993 laying down the conditions under which
breach of provisions with direct effect of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC               non-resident carriers may operate national road haulage services
of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                       within a Member State precludes national provisions of a host
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                    Member State which entail the latter levying vehicle tax on the
tax: uniform basis of assessment, such as those in Article 11A(1), is               use of motor vehicles for the carriage of goods by road on the
incompatible with the principles of effectiveness and of the protection             ground that those vehicles have their regular base in the territory
of legitimate expectations.                                                         of that host Member State, when they are registered in the
                                                                                Member State of establishment and are used in the host
                                                                                Member State to carry out cabotage by road, in accordance
( 1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.                                                         with authorisations lawfully issued by the Member State of
                                                                                establishment.
                                                                             2.     Article 5 of Council Directive 93/89/EEC of 25 October 1993
                                                                                on the application by Member States of taxes on certain vehicles
                                                                                used for the carriage of goods by road and tolls and charges for
                                                                                the use of certain infrastructures precludes national provisions
                                                                                of a host Member State, within the meaning of Article 1(1) of
                                                                                Regulation No 3118/93, which entail the levying by the latter
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             of vehicle tax on the use of motor vehicles for the carriage of
                                                                                goods by road on the ground that those vehicles have their
                                                                                regular base in the territory of that host Member State, when
                             2 July 2002
                                                                                they are registered and the tax referred to in Article 3(1) of that
                                                                                directive has been paid in the Member State of establishment
in Case C-115/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                           and those vehicles are used in the host Member State for
the Finanzgericht Münster): Andreas Hoves Internationa-                             cabotage by road, in accordance with authorisations lawfully
      ler Transport-Service Sàrl v Finanzamt Borken (1)                             issued by the Member State of establishment.
(Transport of goods by road — Tax on motor vehicles —                        (1 ) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                   Member State of registration)
                           (2002/C 233/09)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                       (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                11 July 2002
In Case C-115/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) for a preliminary                  in Case C-139/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                                       ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
Andreas Hoves Internationaler Transport-Service Sàrl and
Finanzamt Borken, on the interpretation of Article 6 of Council              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Regulation (EEC) No 3118/93 of 25 October 1993 laying                        Directive 89/369/EEC — Atmospheric pollution — Munici-
down the conditions under which non-resident carriers may                        pal waste incineration plants on the island of La Palma)
operate national road haulage services within a Member State
(OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1) and Article 5 of Council Directive 93/
89/EEC of 25 October 1993 on the application by Member                                                   (2002/C 233/10)
States of taxes on certain vehicles used for the carriage of
goods by road and tolls and charges for the use of certain
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
infrastructures (OJ 1993 L 279, p. 32), the Court, composed
of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken,
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gul-                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
mann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet,                                             in the European Court Reports)
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, V. Skouris and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advo-
cate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar has given a judgment on 2 July 2002, in which it has               In Case C-139/00, Commission of the European Communities
ruled:                                                                       (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz