title: Case C-548/08: Action brought on 9 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/23

         Action brought on 9 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-548/08)
   (2009/C 32/41)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Stølvbæk and U. Jonsson, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 (1) on the recognition of professional qualifications or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for implementation of the Directive expired on 20 October 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 255, p. 22.


title: Case F-40/12: Action brought on 20 March 2012 — ZZ v EASA

text:
               23.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/24

         Action brought on 20 March 2012 — ZZ v EASA
   (Case F-40/12)
   2012/C 184/53
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. G. Schwend, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant and claim for compensation for damage claimed to be suffered because of that dismissal and alleged harassment.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision terminating the employment of 24 May 2011, with all the financial consequences arising therefrom;

               —

               Order EASA to pay the sum of EUR 301 559,04 in compensation for material damage;

               —

               Order EASA to pay the sum of EUR 50 000,00 in compensation for non-material damage;

               —

               Order EASA to pay the amount of EUR 250.00 per day from 23 May 2011 until the date of service of final judgment as compensation for the non-material damage caused by the harassment;

               —

               Order EASA to pay the costs.


title: Case T-511/08: Action brought on 27 November 2008 — Unity OSG FZE/Conseil et EUPOL Afghanistan

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/44

         Action brought on 27 November 2008 — Unity OSG FZE/Conseil et EUPOL Afghanistan
   (Case T-511/08)
   (2009/C 32/86)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Unity OSG FZE (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: C. Bryant and J. McEwen, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (‘EUPOL Afghanistan’)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (‘EUPOL Afghanistan’) (i) to reject the applicant's tender in relation to the contract for provision of guarding and close protection services in Afghanistan, (ii) to award the contract to another tenderer as communicated to the applicant by letter of 23 November 2008;

               —

               order the defendant to bear the applicant's costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 19 December 2007, the applicant entered into a contract with the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan (1) (‘EUPOL Afghanistan’) for the provision of security services. In September 2008, EUPOL Afghanistan issued a public procurement notice concerning the provision of guarding and close protection services which was published (2) on the European Commission's website in relation to the ‘EuropeAid’ programme and in accordance to the provisions of Title V of Part One of the Financial Regulation 1605/2002 (3) (‘the Financial Regulation’) and the detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation contained in Commission Regulation 2342/2002 (4).
   The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of EUPOL Afghanistan of 23 November 2008, by which the applicant was informed that its tender had not been successful and that the contract would be awarded to Armor Group, on the basis of the following grounds:
   First, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination provided for in Article 89(1) of the Financial Regulation.
   Second, the applicant submits that the conditions applicable to contacts between the contracting authority and tenderers during the procurement process as set out in Article 99 of the Financial Regulation and in Articles 120(2)(d) and 148 of the Implementing Rules have been infringed.
   Third, the applicant contends that the requirement to advertise a contract opportunity first in the Official Journal of the European Union, before being advertised elsewhere, as set out in Article 121 of the Implementing Rules, was infringed. According to the applicant, this requirement was infringed since the contract was advertised on the EuropAid website first, rather than in the Official Journal.
   Fourth, the applicant submits that the requirement to respect the minimum time-limits under the accelerated restricted procedure laid down in Article 142(1) of the Financial Regulation has been infringed.
   Fifth, the applicant claims that the defendant failed to respect the requirement set out in Article 158(a) of the Implementing Rules, for a standstill period between the decision on contract award and signature of the contract. In addition, the applicant puts forward that the defendant failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons, in accordance with Article 253 EC.

      (1)  Established on 30 May 2007, pursuant to Council Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP (OJ 2007 L 139, p. 33).

      (2)  The notice was published in the supplement to the Official Journal of 7 October 2008, 2008/S 194-255613.

      (3)  OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1.

      (4)  OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1.


title: Case T-86/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 July 2009 — Studio Bichara and Others v Commission

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/21

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 July 2009 — Studio Bichara and Others v Commission
   (Case T-86/06) (1)

   2009/C 233/41

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 121, 20.5.2006.


title: Case C-425/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Portugal) — Portgás — Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás SA v Ministério da Agricultura, do Mar, do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território (Procedures for awarding public contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors — Directive 93/38/EEC — Directive not transposed into national law — Whether the State may rely on that directive against a body holding a public service concession in the case where that directive has not been transposed into national law)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Portugal) — Portgás — Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás SA v Ministério da Agricultura, do Mar, do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território
   (Case C-425/12) (1)

   (Procedures for awarding public contracts in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Directive 93/38/EEC - Directive not transposed into national law - Whether the State may rely on that directive against a body holding a public service concession in the case where that directive has not been transposed into national law)
   2014/C 52/28
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Portgás — Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás SA

      Defendant: Ministério da Agricultura, do Mar, do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Portugal — Interpretation of Articles 2(1)(b), 4(1) and 14(1)(c)(i) of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84), as amended by Directive 98/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 1) — Direct effect — Whether the State may rely on that directive against a body holding a public service concession in the case where that directive has not been transposed into national law.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 4(1), 14(1)(c)(i) and 15 of Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 98/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that they cannot be relied on against a private undertaking solely on the ground that, in its capacity as the exclusive holder of a public-interest service concession, that undertaking comes within the group of persons covered by Directive 93/38, in circumstances where that directive has not yet been transposed into the domestic system of the Member State concerned.
   Such an undertaking, which has been given responsibility, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing, under the control of the State, a public-interest service and which has, for that purpose, special powers going beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals, is obliged to comply with the provisions of Directive 93/38, as amended by Directive 98/4, and the authorities of a Member State may therefore rely on those provisions against it.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 15.12.2012.


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/44

         Removal from the Register of Case T-228/04 (1)

   (2005/C 143/83)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 11 April 2005, the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-228/04, Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.


title: Case C-145/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/82/EC — Veterinary medicinal products — Decentralised procedure for the grant of marketing authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product in a number of Member States — Generic medicinal products similar to the reference medicinal products already authorised — Refusal to approve request by a Member State — Composition and form of the medicinal product)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 July 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-145/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/82/EC - Veterinary medicinal products - Decentralised procedure for the grant of marketing authorisation for a veterinary medicinal product in a number of Member States - Generic medicinal products similar to the reference medicinal products already authorised - Refusal to approve request by a Member State - Composition and form of the medicinal product)
   2012/C 295/16
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová, A. Marghelis and O. Beynet, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, S. Menez and R. Loosli-Surrans, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 32 and 33 of Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 1) — Decentralised procedure for the grant of marketing authorisation in more than one Member State — Generic medicinal products similar to the reference medicinal products already authorised — Member State’s refusal to approve based on scientific grounds related to the composition of the medicinal product and the choice of pharmaceutical form — Principle of mutual recognition

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by refusing to approve two requests for marketing authorisation of the medicinal veterinary products CT-Line 15 % Premix and CT-Line 15 % Oral Powder in the context of the decentralised procedure provided for by Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, as amended by Directive 2004/28/EC of the European Parliament of the Council of 31 March 2004, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 32 and 33 of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.


title: Case C-502/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 3 August 2004 in the case of Ergün Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested parties: 1. the representative of the national interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht 2. Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 3 August 2004 in the case of Ergün Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested parties: 1. the representative of the national interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht 2. Landesanwaltschaft Bayern
   (Case C-502/04)
   (2005/C 31/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht of 3 August 2004, received at the Court Registry on 7 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ergün Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested parties: 1. the representative of the national interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht 2. Landesanwaltschaft Bayern received at the Court Registry on 7 December 2004 for a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

               1.

               Where a Turkish worker has been legally employed in the Federal Republic of Germany for more than three years, does his child who has reached the age of majority and has completed a course of vocational training as an industrial mechanic by passing the final apprenticeship examination also forfeit his right of residence that is the corollary of the right under the second sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council ('Decision No 1/80') to respond to any offer of employment – apart from cases under Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 or where the host Member State is left without legitimate reason for a significant period of time – where

                           (a)

                           the child has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment totalling three years for aggravated robbery and drug offences, the sentence has not been suspended (even at a later date) and the whole of the sentence has been served by offsetting the period spent on remand pending trial?

                           (b)

                           the child has himself pursued employment as a worker within the legitimate labour force of the Federal Republic of Germany and has thereby acquired in his own right a right of residence that is the corollary of the right of free access to employment under the second or third indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, and has subsequently forfeited that right?
                           Is such forfeiture caused by

                                       (aa)

                                       the fact that he left his last place of employment as a result of drug addiction-induced summary termination of his employment by his employer?

                                       (bb)

                                       the fact that, following a period of ill health of more than three months, he did not register with the competent authority as unemployed for a period of one month between the end of his incapacity for work and his arrest for the commission of a criminal offence?

                                       (cc)

                                       the fact that he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment totalling three years for aggravated robbery and drug offences, that the sentence was not suspended (even at a later date), that the whole of the sentence was served by offsetting the period spent on remand pending trial and that during that time he was not available to the legitimate labour force but, approximately three months after his release, did find employment again with a firm on a temporary basis, without then having any national right of residence?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Does a Turkish national forfeit his right of residence that is the corollary of the right of free access to employment under the second or third indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 in the circumstances described above in Question 1b)?


title: Case C-147/13: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 May 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Implementing enhanced cooperation — Unitary patent — Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 — Provisions concerning translation — Principle of non-discrimination — Article 291 TFEU — Delegation of powers to bodies outside the European Union — Second paragraph of Article 118 TFEU — Legal basis — Principle of autonomy of EU law)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 May 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-147/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Implementing enhanced cooperation - Unitary patent - Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 - Provisions concerning translation - Principle of non-discrimination - Article 291 TFEU - Delegation of powers to bodies outside the European Union - Second paragraph of Article 118 TFEU - Legal basis - Principle of autonomy of EU law))
   (2015/C 213/08)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Chamizo Llatas and S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: T. Middleton, F. Florindo Gijón, M. Balta and L. Grønfeldt, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by C. Pochet, J.-C. Halleux and T. Materne, acting as Agents), Czech Republic (represented by M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented by C. Thorning and M. Wolff, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze, M. Möller and J. Kemper, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, F.-X. Bréchot, D. Colas and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary (represented by Z. Fehér and K. Szíjjártó, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by M. Bulterman and J. Langer, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by M. Holt, acting as Agent, and by J. Stratford QC and T. Mitcheson, Barrister), European Parliament (represented by M. Gómez-Leal, U. Rösslein and M. Dean, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by I. Martínez del Peral, T. van Rijn, B. Smulders and F. Bulst, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Hungary, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-431/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 January 2009 — Italy v Commission

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 January 2009 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-431/04) (1)

   (2009/C 69/116)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 314, 18.12.2004.


title: Case T-465/12: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — AGC Glass Europe and Others v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — European automotive glass market — Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of information the Commission intends to publish — Obligation to state reasons — Confidentiality — Obligation of professional secrecy — Leniency programme — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — AGC Glass Europe and Others v Commission
   (Case T-465/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Administrative procedure - European automotive glass market - Publication of a decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Rejection of a request for confidential treatment of information the Commission intends to publish - Obligation to state reasons - Confidentiality - Obligation of professional secrecy - Leniency programme - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))
   (2015/C 302/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: AGC Glass Europe (Brussels, Belgium); AGC Automotive Europe SA, (Fleurus, Belgium); AGC France SAS (Boussois, France); AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl (Cuneo, Italy); AGC Glass UK Ltd (Northampton, United Kingdom); AGC Glass Germany GmbH (Wegberg, Germany) (represented by: L. Garzaniti, J. Blockx, P. Niggemann, A. Burckett St Laurent, lawyers, and S. Ryan, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Kellerbauer, G. Meessen and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 5719 final of 6 August 2012 on the rejection of a request for confidential treatment submitted by AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA, AGC France SAS, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd and AGC Glass Germany GmbH, under Article 8 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (Case COMP/39.125 — Car glass).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AGC Glass Europe SA, AGC Automotive Europe SA, AGC France SAS, AGC Flat Glass Italia Srl, AGC Glass UK Ltd and AGC Glass Germany GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Villeroy & Boch Austria and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information — Single infringement — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Proof — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Non-retroactivity — Reasonable period)

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — Villeroy & Boch Austria and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-373/10, T-374/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Coordination of price increases and exchange of sensitive business information - Single infringement - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Proof - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Non-retroactivity - Reasonable period)
   2013/C 325/40
   Languages of the case: German, French and Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH (Mondsee, Austria) (represented by: A. Reidlinger, S. Dethof, M. Klusmann and K. Blau-Hansen, lawyers) (Case T-373/10); Villeroy & Boch AG (Mettlach, Germany) (represented by: M. Klusmann, lawyer, Prof. S. Thomas) (Case T-374/10); Villeroy & Boch SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: J. Philippe, K. Blau-Hansen, lawyers, and A. Villette, Solicitor) (Case T-382/10); and Villeroy & Boch — Belgium (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer, J. Blockx and N. Lorjé, lawyers) (Case T-402/10)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: in Case T-373/10, initially, F. Castillo de la Torre, R. Sauer, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and A. Antoniadis, and, subsequently, F. Castillo de la Torre, R. Sauer and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, Agents, assisted by G. van der Wal and M. van Heezik, lawyers; in Case T-374/10, A. Antoniadis, R. Sauer and F. Ronkes Agerbeek; in Case T-382/10, F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Ronkes Agerbeek and N. von Lingen, Agents, assisted by G. van der Wal and M. van Heezik; and, in Case T-402/10, F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, assisted by G. van der Wal and M. van Heezik)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fines imposed on them.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               In Cases T-373/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10, dismisses the actions;

               2.

               In Case T-374/10, annuls Article 1(7) of Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 final of 23 June 2010 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.092 — Bathroom Fittings and Fixtures), in so far as it finds that Villeroy & Boch AG participated in a cartel in the bathroom fittings and fixtures sector in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria before 12 October 1994;

               3.

               In Case T-374/10, dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders Villeroy & Boch Austria GmbH, Villeroy & Boch SAS and Villeroy & Boch — Belgium to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission in Cases T-373/10, T-382/10 and T-402/10;

               5.

               Orders Villeroy & Boch AG to bear seven eighths of its own costs and to pay seven eighths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Case T-374/10;

               6.

               Orders the Commission to bear one eighth of its own costs and to pay one eighth of the costs incurred by Villeroy & Boch AG in Case T-374/10.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/46

         Action brought on 30 January 2004 by Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia A.V.E.E. (S.A.) against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-35/04)
   (2004/C 94/130)
   Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure language in which the case was submitted: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 January 2004 by Athinaiki Oikogeniaki Artopoiia A.V.E.E. (S.A.), Pikermi, Attica, Greece, represented by Dr C. Chrissanthis, lawyer.
   Ferrero oHG mbH was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision and / or alter it accordingly so that the intervener's opposition be dismissed and the relevant CTM No. 1 010 099 application for registration effectively be accepted,

               —

               Reject definitely and in its entirety the opposition to registration of the mark applied in respect of all the classes where it was successful,

               —

               Order the Office and the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in opposition proceedings and before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for the Community trade mark:

               The Applicant.

               Trade mark concerned:

               Figurative trade mark ‘Ferró’ - Application No 1 1 010 099 for goods and services in classes 29, 30 and 42.

               Proprietor of the opposing trade mark or sign:

               Ferrero oHG mbH.

               Opposing trade mark or sign:

               Word trade mark ‘FERRERO’ (German trade mark registration No 956 671) for goods in classes 5, 29, 30, 32 and 33.

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Partial upholding of the opposition for the following goods in class 30: ‘Coffee, tea, sugar, artificial coffee, flour and preparation made from cereals, bread, biscuits, pastry and confectionery, ices, syrup, yeast, baking powder, all kinds of bread preparations, honey, treacle’.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Rejection of the appeal.

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 44/94.


title: Case T-465/09: Action brought on 19 November 2009 — Jurašinović v Council

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/59

         Action brought on 19 November 2009 — Jurašinović v Council
   (Case T-465/09)
   2010/C 24/105
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ivan Jurašinović (Angers, France) (represented by: M. Jarry, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 22 September 2009 by which the applicant was granted only partial access to the following documents: reports of observers of the European Union in Croatia on the Knin zone from 1 August to 31 August 1995;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union — Secretariat-General to grant electronic access to all parts of the documents sought;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the applicant EUR 2 000 exclusive of tax or EUR 2 392 inclusive of tax in procedural indemnity with interest, at the rate determined by the ECB in respect of the day the application was lodged.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of 22 September 2009 refusing to grant him full access to the reports of the European Union observers in Croatia on the Knin zone from 1 August to 31 August 1995.
   The applicant raises three pleas in support of his action.

               —

               disclosure would not undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) in so far as:

                           —

                           no specific legal protection may apply to the documents at issue;

                           —

                           even supposing that specific protection may apply to the documents sought, Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001 provides that ‘he exceptions as laid down in paragraphs 1 to 3 shall only apply for the period during which protection is justified on the basis of the content of the document.’ Half of the maximum period of protection laid down in Article 4(7) has already passed, which justifies the grant of access to the documents sought;

                           —

                           finally, the documents sought are not sensitive documents within the meaning of Article 9 of Regulation No 1049/2001;

               —

               disclosure would not undermine public security in accordance with Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1049/200 in so far as:

                           —

                           whether third parties have provided ‘confidential’ information for use in those documents is irrelevant, since Regulation No 1049/2001 does not allow an institution to refuse access to a document in order to protect a hypothetical ‘third party’;

                           —

                           the Council’s argument that it seeks to ‘protect’ the physical well-being of observers, witnesses and other sources constitutes a desire to protect the private interests of those persons and does not affect public security;

                           —

                           in order to reconcile its concern for the protection of the identity of certain persons with the need to satisfy the interest of the public, the Council is able, always, to limit public access to the documents sought by deleting from those documents references that would allow identification of those ‘third parties’;

               —

               the documents sought have previously been disclosed.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43)


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 February 2000 in Case T-1/00 R: Gustav Hölzl and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Admissibility of the main action)

text:
29.4.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 122/35
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 (Germany), represented by U. Schrömbges and L. Harings,
                                                                           Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
                       of 14 February 2000                                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,
                                                                           8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr and G. Braun) — application,
in Case T-325/99: Generale Conserve Spa v Commission
                                                                           first, for suspension of operation of Commission Regulation
   of the European Communities and Italian Republic (1)
                                                                           (EEC) No 2799/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down
                                                                           details of rules for applying Regulation (EEC) No 1255/1999
                  (Manifest lack of jurisdiction)                          as regards the grant of aid for skimmed milk and skimmed-milk
                                                                           powder intended for animal feed and the sale of such
                         (2000/C 122/51)                                   skimmed-milk powder (OJ 1999 L 340, p. 3) and, second,
                                                                           for a declaration that Regulation (EEC) No 1105/68 of the
                                                                           Commission of 27 July 1968 on detailed rules for granting aid
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                        for skimmed-milk for use as feed (OJ, English Special Edition,
                                                                           1968 (II), p. 379), as last amended by Commission Regulation
In Case T-325/99: Generale Conserve Spa, established at                    (EC) No 1802/95 of 25 July 1995 amending the regulations
Assogo, Italy, represented by C. Cigolini, G. Durazzo and                  that fixed, prior to 1 February 1995, certain prices and
M. Hengel, against Commission of the European Communities                  amounts in the market in milk and milk products of which the
and Italian Republic — application for annulment of Com-                   value in ecus was adapted as a result of the abolition of the
mission Decision C(1999) 1596 def. of 17 June 1999 finding                 correction factor for agricultural conversion rates (OJ 1995
that steps should be taken for the post-clearance recovery of              L 174, p. 27) is to continue to apply until the Court has given
import duties which the applicant was not required to pay in               its ruling on the substance of the case — the President of the
respect of imports of tuna fish from Turkey — the Court of                 Court of First Instance made an order on 15 February 2000,
First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-              the operative part of which is as follows:
dent, R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, made an order on 14 February 2000, the operative                1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
part of which is as follows:
                                                                           2. The costs are reserved.
1. The action is partially dismissed, in so far as it was brought
    against the Italian Republic.
2. The applicant shall bear its own costs, in so far as the action was
    brought against the Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                   Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Athanasios N.
                                                                           Pitsiorlas against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                                the European Central Bank
                                                                                (Case T-3/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/53)
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                            INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                       of 15 February 2000
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                           European Central Bank (ECB) was brought before the Court of
in Case T-1/00 R: Gustav Hölzl and Others v Commission
                                                                           First Instance on 20 January 2000 by Athanasios N. Pitsiorlas,
                of the European Communities
                                                                           residing in Thessaloniki, 8 Odos N. Koudouriotou (Greece),
                                                                           represented by Dimitris Papafilippou, Barrister.
(Proceedings for interim relief — Admissibility of the main
                              action)
                                                                           The applicant asks the Court of First Instance to:
                         (2000/C 122/52)                                   — uphold the action in its entirety;
                                                                           — order the production of evidence to clarify the circum-
                   (Language of the case: German)                               stances in which the decisions of the two Community
                                                                                institutions were adopted;
In Case T-1/00 R: Gustav Hölzl, residing at Damme (Germany),
Günter Wiegert, residing at Velen (Germany), Firma Molkerei                — annul the negative decisions of the Council of 30 July
Wagenfeld Karl Niemann GmbH & Co. KG, established at                            1999 and of the ECB of 8 November and 6 July 1999
Wagenfeld (Germany), Josef Brüninghoff, residing at Bocholt                     entirely depriving the applicant of the right of access to
(Germany) and Lüdger Nienhaus, residing at Borken-Gemen                         the Basle/Nyborg Agreement;


title: Joined Cases C-464/13 and C-465/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Europäische Schule München v Silvana Oberto (C-464/13), Barbara O’Leary (C-465/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Statute of the European Schools — Competence of the Complaints Board of the European Schools to rule on a fixed-term employment contract entered into between a European school and a teacher not posted or seconded by a Member State)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht — Germany) — Europäische Schule München v Silvana Oberto (C-464/13), Barbara O’Leary (C-465/13)
   (Joined Cases C-464/13 and C-465/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Statute of the European Schools - Competence of the Complaints Board of the European Schools to rule on a fixed-term employment contract entered into between a European school and a teacher not posted or seconded by a Member State))
   (2015/C 146/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Europäische Schule München

      Defendants: Silvana Oberto (C-464/13), Barbara O’Leary (C-465/13)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, concluded in Luxembourg on 21 June 1994 between the Member States and the European Communities, must be interpreted as meaning that part-time teachers employed by a European school who are not seconded by the Member States are among the persons covered by that provision, unlike the administrative and ancillary staff, who are excluded from it.

               2)

               The first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools must be interpreted as not precluding an agreement concerning the fixed-term nature of the employment relationship, contained in the employment contract concluded between the school and the part-time teacher, from being regarded as constituting an act adversely affecting that part-time teacher.

               3)

               The first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 27(2) of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools must be interpreted as not precluding an act carried out by the headteacher of a European school in the exercise of his powers from coming, in principle, within the scope of that provision. Points 1.3, 3.2 and 3.4 of the Conditions of Employment for Part-time Teachers recruited between 1 September 1994 and 31 August 2011 must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning the legality of an agreement on limiting the duration of the employment relationship included in the employment contract concluded between a part-time teacher and that headteacher comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Complaints Board of the European Schools.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16.11.2013.


title: Case F-6/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Suvikas v Council (Staff case — Members of the temporary staff — Preliminary plea — Confidential documents — Documents obtained unlawfully — Removal of documents — Recruitment — Vacant post — Unlawful rejection of candidature — Annulment — Action for damages — Loss of the opportunity to be recruited — Equitable assessment)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/23

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008 — Suvikas v Council
   (Case F-6/07)
   (Staff case - Members of the temporary staff - Preliminary plea - Confidential documents - Documents obtained unlawfully - Removal of documents - Recruitment - Vacant post - Unlawful rejection of candidature - Annulment - Action for damages - Loss of the opportunity to be recruited - Equitable assessment)
   (2008/C 158/39)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Risto Suvikas (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, Agents)
   Re:
   First, annulment of the decision of the Advisory Selection Committee not to include the applicant's name on the list of the best candidates for selection in relation to Council notice of vacancy B/024 and, second, annulment of that list and the Council decisions to recruit the candidates whose names were included therein to the posts to be filled and not to recruit the applicant — Claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders that the documents produced by Mr Suvikas in Annex A 14 to A 16 to the application be removed from the case file;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the contracting authority of 20 February 2006 not to include Mr Suvikas on the list of the best candidates following the selection of Council/B/024 members of the temporary staff;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay to Mr Suvikas the sum of EUR 20 000 to compensate him for the material damage which he has suffered;

               4.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               5.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case C-128/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Het Oudeland Beheer BV (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — VAT — Taxable transactions — Application for the purposes of the business of goods acquired ‘in the course of the business’ — Treatment as supplies effected for consideration — Taxable amount)

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Het Oudeland Beheer BV
   (Case C-128/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - VAT - Taxable transactions - Application for the purposes of the business of goods acquired ‘in the course of the business’ - Treatment as supplies effected for consideration - Taxable amount))
   (2016/C 243/03)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Het Oudeland Beheer BV

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 11A(1)(b) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 must be interpreted as meaning that the value of a right in rem granting its holder a right of use over immovable property and the cost of completing the office building built on the land in question may be included in the taxable amount of a supply, within the meaning of Article 5(7)(a) of that directive, as amended, where the taxable person has already paid value added tax on that value and that cost, but also deducted the value added tax immediately and in full;

               2.

               In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, where land and a building under construction on that land have been acquired with the grant of a right in rem granting its holder a right of use over such immovable property, Article 11A(1)(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that the value of that right in rem to be taken in account in calculating the taxable amount of a supply, within the meaning of Article 5(7)(a) of that directive, corresponds to the value of the amount to be paid in consideration each year for the remainder of the long lease granting the right in rem, as corrected or capitalised according to the same method used to determine the value of the grant of the long leasehold.

      (1)  OJ C 159, 26.5.2014.


title: Case C-415/01: Action brought on 19 October 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
22.12.2001                  EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 369/9
     the view — which is challenged by the Netherlands —                 Upon triangular outward processing, is an operator prohibited,
     that not only imports of mixtures of sugar and cocoa                upon a proper interpretation of Articles 145 to 151 of the
     with EC/OCT originating status, but also imports of                 Community Customs Code (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92) (1)
     mixtures of sugar and cocoa with ACP/OCT originating                from deducting, on release of compensating products for free
     status, have an adverse effect on the sugar sector, it has          circulation, the amount of the import duties which would be
     failed in any way whatever to substantiate this;                    applicable to the temporary export goods in accordance with
                                                                         their correct tariff heading where their tariff heading declared
—    Infringement of Article 109(2) of the OCT Decision: the             on their exportation was different because it was incorrect?
     Commission has failed to ensure that the safeguard
     measures adopted pursuant to the contested regulation
     will cause as little disruption as possible to the functioning
     of the association. The Commission has also failed to               (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                             establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302 of
     determine whether those safeguard measures will have                    19.10.1992, p. 1).
     the intended effect. Finally, the safeguard measures which
     have been adopted go further than is necessary: a
     safeguard measure providing simply for a minimum
     import price for ACP/OCT mixtures would have been
     adequate to achieve the desired objective and would have
     been less onerous for the OCT and the undertakings
     concerned;
—    Misuse of powers: Article 109 of the OCT Decision does
     not confer on the Commission any discretionary power
     to correct or supplement the opportunities for ACP/OCT              Action brought on 19 October 2001 by the Commission
     originating status intended by the Council in cases where           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     the use of such an opportunity has consequences which                                               Belgium
     were envisaged or even intended when the OCT Decision
     was adopted;
                                                                                (Case C-415/01)
—    Infringement of the principle of the protection of legit-
     imate expectations;
                                                                                (2001/C 369/16)
—    Infringement of Article 253 EC: the safeguard measure in
     issue is in no way whatever supported by facts or figures.
(1) OJ C ... of ..., p. ...
                                                                         An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         19 October 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by G.V. Jordana and J. Adda, acting
                                                                         as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
stance de Metz, by judgment of that court of 8 October
2001, in the case of SA GEFCO v Receveur Principal des
                                Douanes                                  —     Declare that, inasmuch as the Flemish Region and the
                                                                               Walloon Region have failed to transpose Article 4(1) and
                                                                               (2) of and Annex I to Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1),
                             (Case C-411/01)                                   to define special protection areas within their territories
                                                                               which are capable of being relied upon as against third
                                                                               parties and to take the measures necessary to ensure that
                             (2001/C 369/15)                                   the classification of a site as a special protection area
                                                                               automatically and simultaneously entails the application
                                                                               of a system of protection and conservation which is in
                                                                               line with Community law, the Kingdom of Belgium has
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2) of
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal d’Instan-                   Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
ce (District Court), Metz, of 8 October 2001, which was                        conservation of wild birds, together with Article 4(4)
received at the Court Registry on 17 October 2001, for a                       thereof, as partially amended, in accordance with Article 7
preliminary ruling in the case of SA GEFCO v Receveur                          of Directive 92/43/EEC (2), by Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of
Principal des Douanes on the following questions:                              that same directive,
 ---pagebreak--- C 369/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.12.2001
—     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                       2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by G. zur Hausen, acting as Agent, assisted by
                                                                           H. van der Woude and V. Landes, avocats, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     The mere fact of having designated a number of special
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      protection areas does not in itself constitute a complete
      and proper transposition of Article 4(1) and (2) of the
      directive since such designation is only intended to
      implement the general obligations enshrined in the                   —     Declare that, by failing to transpose completely Articles
      directive. On the other hand, no legally binding provision                 14(a) and (b), 15(1) and (2), 16(1) and 19(2), (3) and (4)
      applicable in the territory of one or other region provides                of Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990
      for the classification as special protection areas of the                  on the contained use of genetically modified micro-
      most appropriate areas in terms of number and surface                      organisms (1), and by failing to transpose the provisions
      area for the conservation of the bird species listed in                    of the directive for certain contained use by the Ministry
      Annex I and of the regularly occurring migratory species                   of Defence, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      not listed in Annex I, as regards their breeding, moulting                 obligations under that directive and Article 249 of the EC
      and wintering areas and staging posts along their                          Treaty; and
      migration routes.
—     The delimitation of the special protection areas by those            —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      regions cannot be relied upon as against third parties in
      the absence of their publication and in the absence of
      provisions of national law providing expressly that the
      publication of the order without accompanying maps is
      to have no effect on their binding nature vis-à-vis third
      parties.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
—     So far as the Flemish Region is concerned, the special
      protection areas do not have the protection and conser-
      vation status provided for by Community law in the field,
      since the only measures which are applicable are either
                                                                           The Commission takes the view that the implementing
      sparse and disjointed or, on the contrary, are of an
                                                                           measures communicated by the French authorities amount to
      extremely general nature having exactly the same value
                                                                           only incomplete transposition of certain provisions of the
      within as outwith the special protection areas.
                                                                           directive, namely:
(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conser-
    vation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).                            —     Article 14(a), in so far as it concerns the use of genetically
(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation               modified micro-organisms belonging to Groups I and II
    of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,              for teaching, research and development, and in so far as
    p. 7).                                                                       it concerns installations other than those subject to
                                                                                authorisation involving uses for industrial or non-com-
                                                                                mercial purposes;
                                                                           —     Article 14(b), in so far as it concerns installations subject
                                                                                to declaration and in so far as it concerns making
                                                                                available to other Member States concerned information
Action brought on 5 November 2001 by the Commission                              on safety measures and on the correct behaviour to adopt
  of the European Communities against French Republic                            in the case of an accident;
                          (Case C-429/01)
                                                                           —     Article 15(1), in that the measures adopted by the French
                                                                                authorities do not specify the list of information to be
                          (2001/C 369/17)                                        provided by the user;
                                                                           —     Article 15(2), in so far as it concerns the drawing up of a
An action against the French Republic was brought before the                     framework for the measures designed to alert any Member
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 November                       State liable to be affected by an accident;


title: Case C-482/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc. (Trade marks — Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 9(1) — Concept of acquiescence — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Starting point for limitation period — Prerequisites for the limitation period to run — Article 4(1)(a) — Registration of two identical marks designating identical goods — Functions of the trade mark — Honest concurrent use)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik v Anheuser-Busch Inc.
   (Case C-482/09) (1)

   (Trade marks - Directive 89/104/EEC - Article 9(1) - Concept of acquiescence - Limitation in consequence of acquiescence - Starting point for limitation period - Prerequisites for the limitation period to run - Article 4(1)(a) - Registration of two identical marks designating identical goods - Functions of the trade mark - Honest concurrent use)
   2011/C 331/04
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik

      Defendant: Anheuser-Busch Inc.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — Interpretation of Articles 4(1)(a) and 9(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Limitation in consequence of acquiescence — Concept of acquiescence — Concept of Community law? — Possibility of proceedings under relevant national law, including rules relating to honest concurrent use of two identical marks

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Acquiescence, within the meaning of Article 9(1) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, is a concept of European Union law and the proprietor of an earlier trade mark cannot be held to have acquiesced in the long and well-established honest use, of which he has long been aware, by a third party of a later trade mark which is identical with that of the proprietor if that proprietor was not in any position to oppose that use.

               2.

               Registration of the earlier trade mark in the Member State concerned does not constitute a prerequisite for the running of the period of limitation in consequence of acquiescence prescribed in Article 9(1) of Directive 89/104. The prerequisites for the running of that period of limitation, which it is for the national court to determine, are, first, registration of the later trade mark in the Member State concerned, second, the application for registration of that mark being made in good faith, third, use of the later trade mark by its proprietor in the Member State where it has been registered and, fourth, knowledge by the proprietor of the earlier trade mark that the later trade mark has been registered and used after its registration.

               3.

               Article 4(1)(a) of Directive 89/104 must be interpreted as meaning that the proprietor of an earlier trade mark cannot obtain the cancellation of an identical later trade mark designating identical goods where there has been a long period of honest concurrent use of those two trade marks where, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, that use neither has nor is liable to have an adverse effect on the essential function of the trade mark which is to guarantee to consumers the origin of the goods or services.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case T-24/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2009 — MABB v Commission (State aid — Digital terrestrial television — Aid granted by the German authorities to broadcasters which use the digital terrestrial television network (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Action for annulment — Not of individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 October 2009 — MABB v Commission
   (Case T-24/06) (1)

   (State aid - Digital terrestrial television - Aid granted by the German authorities to broadcasters which use the digital terrestrial television network (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Action for annulment - Not of individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 282/73
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg (MABB) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: initially by M. Schütte, lawyer, and B. Immenkamp, Solicitor, then by M. Schütte)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet and K. Gross, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Deutscher Kabelverband eV (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: K. Struckmann, C Arhold and N. Wimmer, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/513/EC of 9 November 2005 on the State Aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg (OJ 2006 L 200, p. 14).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg (MABB) to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, of 8.4.2006.


title: Case C-36/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland (Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations — Internal market in natural gas — Directive 2009/73/EC — State intervention consisting of the obligation to apply prices for supplies of national gas approved by a national authority — Measure unlimited in time — No obligation to check at regular intervals the necessity of that measure and the nature of its application — Application to an unlimited set of users, without distinction between customers or between specific situations — Proportionality)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/7

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 September 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-36/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfill obligations - Internal market in natural gas - Directive 2009/73/EC - State intervention consisting of the obligation to apply prices for supplies of national gas approved by a national authority - Measure unlimited in time - No obligation to check at regular intervals the necessity of that measure and the nature of its application - Application to an unlimited set of users, without distinction between customers or between specific situations - Proportionality))
   (2015/C 363/08)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and M. Patakia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by applying a scheme of State intervention, consisting of the obligation, for energy undertakings, to apply prices for supplies of natural gas which have been approved by the president of the Urzad Regulacji Energetyki (Energy Regulation Authority), an obligation which is unlimited in time and for which national law does not impose on the administrative authorities any obligation to check at regular intervals the necessity and nature of the application of that intervention in the gas sector, having regard to the level of development of that sector, and which is characterised by its application to an unlimited group of users or customers, without any distinction being drawn according to customers and without any differentiation of the situation of individuals within the context of individual groups of customers, the Republic of Poland has failed to comply with its obligations under the provisions of Article 3(1) in conjunction with Article 3(2) of Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC;

               2.

               orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case T-156/11: Action brought on 15 March 2011 — Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v Council

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/18

         Action brought on 15 March 2011 — Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. v Council
   (Case T-156/11)
   2011/C 120/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. (Guangzhou, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: V. Akriditis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1243/2010 of 20 December 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd.; (1)

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant puts forward three pleas in law in support of the application.

               1.

               First plea in law: an initial investigation opened under Article 5 of the Basic Regulation (2) cannot be directed against one company in particular but must concern one or more countries and all the producers in those countries. The applicant submits in this respect that:

                           —

                           the contested regulation is contrary to Article 5 of the Basic Regulation, in particular Article 5(9), read in conjunction with Article 17 of that regulation and interpreted consistently with the law of the WTO, in that that article does not allow a new anti-dumping procedure to be opened against a single company;

                           —

                           the contested regulation infringes Article 9(4) to (6) of the Basic Regulation, read consistently with the law of the WTO, in that that article does not allow anti-dumping duties to be imposed on a single company but requires duties to be imposed on all the companies in one or more countries;

                           —

                           the contested regulation infringes Article 9(3) of the Basic Regulation, under which the zero duty of a company covered by an anti-dumping procedure may be reconsidered only in accordance with a reinvestigation initiated under Article 11(3) of the Basic Regulation; in the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission carried out a de facto reconsideration of its zero duty, in breach of Article 9(3) of the Basic Regulation, interpreted in accordance with a report of the WTO appellate body.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of Article 3, in particular Article 3(2), (3) and (5), of the Basic Regulation, in that the anti-dumping duties were imposed without it being established that the industry of the European Union had suffered injury during the investigation period.

               3.

               Third plea in law: infringement of European Union law in that it was decided not to grant the applicant the status of a company operating in a market economy. The applicant submits in this respect that:

                           —

                           the decision not to grant it the status of a company operating in a market economy was taken in accordance with what the European Commission knew of the effect of such a refusal on the applicant’s dumping margin, in breach of the last subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the Basic Regulation, as interpreted in the case-law of the General Court;

                           —

                           the burden of proof imposed on the applicant by the Commission for it to show that it operates in a market economy is excessive and breaches the general principles of European Union law, in particular the principle of good administration.

      (1)  OJ 2010 L 338, p. 22.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).


title: Case C-501/06 P: Appeal brought on 11 December 2006 by GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited (GSK), anciennement Glaxo Wellcome plc against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2006 in Case T-168/01: GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/11

         Appeal brought on 11 December 2006 by GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited (GSK), anciennement Glaxo Wellcome plc against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 27 September 2006 in Case T-168/01: GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-501/06 P)
   (2007/C 42/18)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited, anciennement Glaxo Wellcome plc (represented by: I. Forrester QC, J. Venit, member of the New York Bar, S. Martínez Lage, abogado, A. Komninos, Δικηγόρος, A. Schulz, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, European Association of Euro Pharmaceutical Companies (EAEPC), Bundesverband der Arzneimittel-Importeure eV, Spain Pharma, SA, Asociación de exportadores españoles de productos farmacéuticos (Aseprofar)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Judgment of the Court of First Instance in so far as it rejects GSK's claim for annulment of Article 1 of the contested Decision, or take such other action as justice may require.

               —

               award GSK the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that the contested judgment should be annulled, in so far as it rejects GSK's claim for annulment of article 1 of the contested decision on the following grounds:

               —

               The Court of First Instance erred in reaching the conclusion that the General Sales Conditions produce ap0preciable anti-competitive effects and thus violate Article 81(1) EC, failing appropriately to assess their actual legal and economic context. Furthermore, (i) the intra-brand price competition that the Court refers to in its Judgment is itself the result of a market distortion, and (ii) the Court relied on alleged marginal advantages that final consumers in importing countries could have derived from the participation of the Spanish wholesalers in intra-brand competition.

               —

               The Court lacked the competence to draw factual conclusions concerning the possible effect upon patients and those who paid for their medicines, given the absence of a basis for such conclusions in the contested Commission decision.


title: Case T-364/15: Action brought on 4 July 2015 — ADR Center v Commission

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/63

         Action brought on 4 July 2015 — ADR Center v Commission
   (Case T-364/15)
   (2015/C 302/78)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ADR Center Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Tantalo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission decision C (2015) 3117 final of 4 May 2015,

               —

               alternatively, declare eligible all the costs found inadmissible by the Commission,

               —

               order the defendants and any interveners to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses for this procedure in an amount to be determined equitably by the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the ground that the Commission lacks the competence to adopt a recovery order in contractual matters.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the ground that the decision relies on errors of fact and assessment.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the ground that the Commission misused its power.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision should be annulled on the ground that the Commission breached their obligation to state reasons.


title: Case T-3/16: Action brought on 4 January 2016 — Allstate Insurance v OHIM (DRIVEWISE)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/34

         Action brought on 4 January 2016 — Allstate Insurance v OHIM (DRIVEWISE)
   (Case T-3/16)
   (2016/C 078/46)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Allstate Insurance Company (Northfield, United States) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘DRIVEWISE’ — Application for registration No 13 455 019

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2015 in Case R 956/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 8 October 2015 in Case R 956/2015-2 concerning Community Trademark Application No. 013 455 019 ‘DRIVEWISE’;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Regulation No. 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No. 207/2009.


title: Joined Cases C-244/10 and C-245/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Mesopotamia Broadcast A/S METV (C-244/10), Roj TV A/S (C-245/10) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Directive 89/552/EEC — Television broadcasting activities — Possibility for a Member State to prohibit on its territory the activities of a television broadcaster established in another Member State — Ground based on infringement of the principles of international understanding)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Germany) — Mesopotamia Broadcast A/S METV (C-244/10), Roj TV A/S (C-245/10) v Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Joined Cases C-244/10 and C-245/10) (1)

   (Directive 89/552/EEC - Television broadcasting activities - Possibility for a Member State to prohibit on its territory the activities of a television broadcaster established in another Member State - Ground based on infringement of the principles of international understanding)
   2011/C 331/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Mesopotamia Broadcast A/S METV (C-244/10), Roj TV A/S (C-245/10)

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Interpretation of Article 2a and 22a of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60) — Prohibition of an activity, opposed by the authorities of a Member State, of a television broadcaster established in another Member State for infringement of the principles of international understanding — Exclusion from the power of the recipient Member State of the ability to prevent, in its territory, television broadcasts from other Member States for reasons which fall within the fields coordinated by Directive 89/552/EEC — Admissibility of the infringement of the principles of international understanding as a ground for prohibition falling within the fields coordinated by that directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 22a of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that facts such as those at issue in the disputes in the main proceedings, covered by a rule of national law prohibiting infringement of the principles of international understanding, must be regarded as being included in the concept of ‘incitement to hatred on grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality’. That article does not preclude a Member State from adopting measures against a broadcaster established in another Member State, pursuant to a general law such as the Law governing the public law of associations (Gesetz zur Regelung des öffentlichen Vereinsrechts), of 5 August 1964, as amended by Paragraph 6 of the Law of 21 December 2007, on the ground that the activities and objectives of that broadcaster run counter to the prohibition of the infringement of the principles of international understanding, provided that those measures do not prevent retransmission per se on the territory of the receiving Member State of television broadcasts made by that broadcaster from another Member State, this being a matter to be determined by the national court.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case C-328/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 2 July 2015 — Andreea Corina Târșia v Statul român, Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 2 July 2015 — Andreea Corina Târșia v Statul român, Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării
   (Case C-328/15)
   (2016/C 191/02)
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Sibiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Andreea Corina Târșia

      Defendants: Statul român, Universitatea ‘Lucian Blaga’ Sibiu, Consiliul Național pentru Combaterea Discriminării
   By order of 14 April 2016, the Court (Sixth Chamber) declared that it clearly lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunalul Sibiu (Romania) by decision of 8 June 2015.


title: Case F-55/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB (Civil Service — EIB staff — Appraisal — 2011 staff report — Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/90

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 18 December 2015 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case F-55/13) (1)

   ((Civil Service - EIB staff - Appraisal - 2011 staff report - Unlawfulness of the decision of the Adjudication Panel - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 048/100)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, laywer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the appraisal of the applicant’s performance for 2011.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Adjudication Panel of the European Investment Bank of 18 December 2012;

               2.

               Declares that there is no need to rule on the pleas seeking the annulment of the staff report for 2011 and all the connected, consequent and prior acts;

               3.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the European Investment Bank to bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Mr De Nicola.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013, p. 26.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 June 2003 in Case C-148/01: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearing of accounts — Additional levy on milk — Late payment interest — Application for partial annulment of Decision 2001/137/EC)

text:
23.8.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 200/5
2.    Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European                         1996 marketing campaign, calculated on the period February
      Communities contained in its letter to the Council of European                1997 to December 2000;
      Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) of 15 February 1999,
      effecting set-off of their mutual claims;                               2.    Ordered the Hellenic Republic and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities to bear their own costs;
3.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those
      incurred by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions          3.    Ordered the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of
      (CEMR) both at first instance and in connection with the                      Spain to bear their own costs.
      appeal.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.
(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 3 July 2003
                            of 12 June 2003
                                                                              in Case C-156/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-148/01: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the                       the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands): R.P. van der
                      European Communities (1)                                Duin v Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ANOZ Zorgver-
                                                                              zekeringen UA, and between Onderlinge Waarborg-
                                                                              maatschappij ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and T.W. van
(EAGGF — Clearing of accounts — Additional levy on milk                                           Wegberg-van Brederode (1)
— Late payment interest — Application for partial annul-
                  ment of Decision 2001/137/EC)
                                                                              (Social security — Pensioners and members of their family
                                                                              residing in a Member State other than the State liable for
                            (2003/C 200/08)                                   payment of the pension — Medical costs incurred in the
                                                                              Member State liable for payment of the pension — Condi-
                      (Language of the case: Greek)                           tions for assumption of responsibility — Competent Member
                                                                              State and competent institution — Articles 21, 22, 28 and
                                                                                31 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                       the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2003/C 200/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case C-148/01: Hellenic Republic (Agent: V. Kontolaimos
and C. Tsiavou) supported by Federal Republic of Germany
(Agents: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma) and Kingdom of Spain                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
(Agent: M. López-Monís Gallego, subsequently S. Ortiz                                               the European Court Reports)
Vaamonde) against Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Condou-Durande — application for partial annul-
ment of Commission Decision 2001/137/EC of 5 February
                                                                              In Case C-156/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
2001 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
                                                                              EC by the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) for a
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of
                                                                              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                                                                              court between R.P. van der Duin and Onderlinge Waarborg-
(EAGGF) (OJ 2001 L 50, p. 9) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                              maatschappij ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA, and between
composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
                                                                              Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, F. Macken and J. N. Cunha
                                                                              UA and T. W. van Wegberg-van Brederode on the interpreta-
Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges; L. A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                              tion of Articles 21, 22(1)(c), 28 and 31 of Council Regulation
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 June
                                                                              (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
2003, in which it:
                                                                              social security schemes to employed persons and their families
                                                                              moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
1.    Annulled Commission Decision 2001/137/EC of 5 February                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ
      2001 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure             1983 L 230, p. 6), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
      incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of            M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, C. W. A. Timmermans,
      the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                   A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann and S. von Bahr, Judges;
      (EAGGF) in so far as it imposed on the Hellenic Republic a              D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Prin-
      financial adjustment by way of late payment interest accruing           cipal Administrator for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
      on the late payment of the additional levy due for the 1995/            3 July 2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-188/13: Action brought on 12 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/25

         Action brought on 12 April 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-188/13)
   2013/C 156/41
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rous and J. Hottiaux)

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

      Form of order sought

   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Commission Directive 2011/18/EU of 1 March 2011 (1) amending Annexes II, V and VI to Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the rail system within the Community, or in any event to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for transposition of the directive expired on 31 December 2011.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 57, p. 21.