title: Judgment of the Court of 29 June 1999 in Case C-206/97 Kingdom of Sweden v Council of the European Union (Accession of the Kingdom of Sweden - Fisheries - Determination of total allowable catches of certain fish - Cod)

text:
C 246/4                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.8.1999
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                                             of 29 June 1999
                          of 22 June 1999
                                                                            in Case C-206/97 Kingdom of Sweden v Council of the
                                                                                European Union (1)
in Case C-412/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pretura Circondariate di Bologna): ED Srl v Italo
                            Fenocchio (1)                                   (Accession of the Kingdom of Sweden — Fisheries —
                                                                            Determination of total allowable catches of certain fish —
                                                                                Cod)
(Free movement of goods — Freedom to provide services —
Free movement of payments —National provision pro-
hibiting the issue of a summary payment order to be served                                            (1999/C 246/07)
          outside national territory — Compatibility)
                          (1999/C 246/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                           In Case C-206/97: Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: Lotty Nordling)
                                                                            v Council of the European Union (Agents Rüdiger Bandilla,
                                                                            Eva Karlsson and Lauri Railas), supported by the Commission
In Case C-412/97: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  of the European Communities (Agents: Christina Tufvesson
EC (ex Article 177) by the Pretura Circondariale di Bologna                 and Thomas van Rijn) — application for the annulment of
(District Magistrates’ Court, Bologna), Italy, for a preliminary            Council Regulation (EC) No 390/97 of 20 December 1996
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the
ED Srl and Italo Fenocchio on the interpretation of Articles 34             total allowable catches for 1997 and certain conditions under
and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 29                  which they may be fished (OJ 1997 L 66, p. 1) as regards the
EC and 49 EC) and Article 56 EC (ex Article 73b), for the                   allocation of cod in Zone III b, c and d — the Court,
purpose of determining the compatibility with those pro-                    composed of G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn
visions of a national rule prohibiting the issue of a summary               (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Presidents
payment order to be served outside national territory — the                 of Chambers), J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J.L. Mur-
Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President              ray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm and L. Sevón, Judges;
of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón              P. Léger, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;                       for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June 1999, in
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                   which it:
judgment on 22 June 1999, in which it has ruled:
1. Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29            1. Dismisses the application;
    EC) does not preclude national legislation which excludes recourse
    to the procedure for obtaining summary payment orders where
    service on the debtor is to be effected in another Member State of      2. Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs;
    the Community.
                                                                            3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its
2. A national procedural provision, such as that in question in the              own costs.
    main proceedings, does not constitute a restriction on the freedom
    to make payments.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.


title: Case T-168/02: Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 202/30               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.8.2002
Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler Tier-                    According to the applicant, the contested Decision also
schutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH against the Commission of                        infringes Article 4 of the Regulation taken as a whole. The
                  the European Communities                                applicant claims that the purpose of the consultation of the
                                                                          German authorities was to enable the Commission to make an
                                                                          assessment whether an exception under Article 4(1) or 4(2)
                         (Case T-168/02)                                  was applicable. However, such an assessment was apparently
                                                                          not made by the Commission. Instead, the Commission
                                                                          indicated that a Member State has the right to veto access to
                         (2002/C 202/49)                                  documents emanating from it, which results, according to the
                                                                          applicant, in a reintroduction of the ‘authorship rule’.
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          The applicant claims furthermore that the contested Decision
                                                                          does not set out adequate reasons for refusing access and
                                                                          therefore infringes Article 253 of the EC Treaty. There is also
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 no reasoning as to why partial access to the documents was
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                denied.
European Communities on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler
Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH, represented by Scott Crosby,
                                                                          The applicant finally indicates that there is a clear public
Solicitor.
                                                                          interest in the disclosure of those documents since the project
                                                                          leading to the destruction of Mühlenberger Loch was the
                                                                          subject of much public and media comment. Therefore, the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               public should have knowledge of the facts underpinning the
                                                                          Opinion of the Commission authorising the declassification of
—     annul the Decision of the Commission of 26 March 2002               Mühlenberger Loch in order to understand how that accords
      refusing access to the documents held by the Commission             with environmental objectives and principles.
      authored by the German authorities relating to the
      expansion of the existing Daimler Chrysler Aerospace
      GmbH plant on the Elbe in Hamburg for the final                     (1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and
      assembly of the Airbus A3XX on an area intended for the                 of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
                                                                              European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ
      Natura 2000 network, as the same were identified in the                 L 145, 31.5.2001 p. 43).
      applicant’s initial application of 20 December 2001 in
      Category B of Annex III to that application;
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria
                                                                                Ragazzini against European Parliament
The applicant sought access to certain documents concerning                                       (Case T-170/02)
the Opinion of the Commission of 19 April 2002 authorising
Germany to declassify the Mühlenberger Loch, an area protect-
ed under Council Directive 92/43/EEC as part of the Natura                                        (2002/C 202/50)
2000 network. The applicant obtained access to part of these
documents. Access to the documents authored by the German                                    (Language of the case: French)
authorities and in the possession of the Commission was,
however, refused by the contested Decision following a request
to that effect made by the German authorities.
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
The applicant claims that the contested Decision constitutes a            29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria Ragazzini, residing in Faenza
breach of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). According             (Italy), represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and
to the applicant, Article 4(5) of the Regulation has been                 Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.
misinterpreted by the Commission. The applicant claims that,
according to the plain meaning of the words used, a request
by a third party does not place the Commission under                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
an absolute obligation to comply with that request in all
circumstances. The Commission indicated however in its                    —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 20 Feb-
Decision that Member States have a right of veto under                          ruary 2002 not to grant her the benefit of Article 73 of
Article 4(5) of the Regulation.                                                 the Staff Regulations;


Important legal notice

|

E2000P0007

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Hérasdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) in the case of Halla Helgadóttir v. Daníel Hjaltason and Iceland Insurance Company Ltd (Case E-7/00)

Official Journal C 368 , 21/12/2000 P. 0010 - 0010

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) in the case of Halla Helgadóttir v. Daníel Hjaltason and Iceland Insurance Company Ltd(Case E-7/00)(2000/C 368/17)A request has been made to the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court on 10 July 2000, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Halla Helgadóttir v. Daníel Hjaltason and Iceland Insurance Company Ltd on the following questions:1. Is it compatible with the provisions of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, in particular European Economic Community Council Directives on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, 72/1667/EEC of 24 April 1972, 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983, and 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990, as amended, to determine the compensation payable to victims under the third-party liability insurance of a motor vehicle in accordance with national tort statutes providing for standardised compensation based on a tier of non-pecuniary loss (medical disability tier), regardless of a tier of permanent disability (occupational disability tier), in cases of victims who, on the date of an accident, make use of their earning capacity in a manner providing them with little or no earnings from employment?2. If the first question is answered in the affirmative, do the Directives provide for minimum compensation for a victim in that situation?3. If the second question is answered in the affirmative, by what reference is the minimum compensation payable to a victim in that situation to be determined and, in particular, what significance is to be given in this context to actuarial calculations, based on different premises as regards discounting and income?4. Does it matter in this context whether a victim is entitled to compensation form other sources?


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 November 2003 in Case T-235/02: Strongline A/S v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Failure to produce evidence in the language of the opposition procedure — Rule 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
7.2.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 35/9
2.    Orders the Parliament to pay the applicant the installation          1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
      allowance provided for by Article 5 of Annex VII of the Staff
      Regulations, amounting to two months’ basic salary, together         2.    The applicant shall pay the costs.
      with default interest from 24 January 2002. The interest rate
      to be applied shall be two points higher than the rate fixed by
      the European Central Bank for principal refinancing operations
                                                                           (1) OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.
      applicable during the period concerned.
3.    Orders the Parliament to bear all the costs.
(1) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 November 2003
                                                                           in Case T-235/02: Strongline A/S v Office for Harmonis-
                                                                           ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                (OHIM) (1)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Failure
                                                                           to produce evidence in the language of the opposition
                       of 5 November 2003                                  procedure — Rule 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 —
                                                                                Action manifestly inadmissible)
in Case T-130/02: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG v Com-
          mission of the European Communities (1)                                                    (2004/C 35/14)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(State aid — Multisectorial framework on regional aid for
large investment projects — Application for correction of a
decision declaring aid to be compatible with the common
market — Commission response — Not in the nature of a
   decision — Application for annulment — Inadmissible)                    In Case T-235/02: Strongline A/S, established in Glostrup
                                                                           (Denmark), represented by J.S. Ørndrup, lawyer, against Office
                                                                           for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                           (2004/C 35/13)                                  Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Waelbroek), the intervener before
                                                                           the Court of First Instance being Scala Inc., established in
                                                                           Exton, Pennsylvania (United States of America), represented by
                                                                           R.M. Hiddleston, solicitor — action brought against the
                   (Language of the case: German)                          decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
                                                                           Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                           Designs) of 27 May 2002 (Case R 830/2001-1) on the refusal
                                                                           of an opposition for failure to substantiate rights based on
                                                                           earlier trade marks — the Court of First Instance (Second
In Case T-130/02: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, whose registered                 Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and
office is in Heiligengrabe, Germany, originally represented by             N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
B. Luther and subsequently by R. Nierer, lawyers, against the              17 November 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Di
Bucci and T. Scharf) — application for annulment of the
alleged decision of the Commission of 5 February 2002 not to               1.    The action is dismissed.
correct its decision of 3 July 2001 relating to the authorisation
of State aid in the sum of DEM 69,3 million to the applicant               2.    The applicant shall pay the costs.
for an investment in Heiligengrabe, Germany — the Court
of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed, at the time of its deliberation, of V. Tiili, President,         (1) OJ C 233 of 28.9.02.
and J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 5 November
2003, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case C-83/07: Order of the President of the Court of 20 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-83/07) (1)

   (2007/C 315/60)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case C-521/10 P: Order of the Court of 22 June 2011 — Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL v European Commission (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure — Alleged infringements of the provisions of European Union law relating to competition — Application seeking to require the Commission to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/5

         Order of the Court of 22 June 2011 — Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL v European Commission
   (Case C-521/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure - Alleged infringements of the provisions of European Union law relating to competition - Application seeking to require the Commission to initiate proceedings against a Member State for failure to fulfil obligations)
   2011/C 340/09
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL (represented by: R. García García, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Castilla Contreras, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 24 August 2010 in Case T-386/09 Grúas Abril Asistencia v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action seeking annulment of the Commission’s letter of 7 August 2009 informing the then applicant that the facts in respect of which it had lodged a complaint with the Commission did not permit the conclusion that there had been an infringement of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC and that no action would be taken in respect of its complaint.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.01.2011.


title: Case T-39/12 P: Appeal brought on 25 January 2012 by Roberto Di Tullio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 Di Tullio v Commission

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/17

         Appeal brought on 25 January 2012 by Roberto Di Tullio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 Di Tullio v Commission
   (Case T-39/12 P)
   2012/C 109/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Roberto Di Tullio (Rovigo, Italy) (represented by: S. Woog and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Declare his appeal admissible and well founded, and consequently:

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal of the Third Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 29 November 2011 in Case F-119/10 by which it dismissed as unfounded the applicant’s action seeking annulment of the decision by which the Commission refused to place him on leave for national service;

               —

               Grant the applicant the form of order sought by him before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of both proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law and mistaken and inadequate reasoning when the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union examined the plea submitted at first instance alleging infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an error of law and infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and equality and of the principle of reasonableness, in so far as the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union did not in this case place any temporal limit on the effects of its interpretative judgment.


title: Case T-342/09: Action brought on 28 August 2009 — Bard v OHIM — Braun Melsungen (PERFIX)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/33

         Action brought on 28 August 2009 — Bard v OHIM — Braun Melsungen (PERFIX)
   (Case T-342/09)
   2009/C 256/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: C.R. Bard, Inc. (Murray Hill, United States) (represented by: A. Bryson, Barrister, O. Bray, A. Hobson and G. Warren, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: B. Braun Melsungen AG (Melsungen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 June 2009 in case R 1577/2007-5; and

               —

               Order the defendant and/or the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “PERFIX”, for goods in class 10

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the word mark “PERIFIX” for goods in class 10; International trade mark registration of the word mark “PERIFIX” for goods in class 10

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case C-287/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Tankreederei I SA v Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes (Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Tax credit for investments — Grant linked to the physical use of the investments on national territory — Use of inland navigation vessels used in other Member States)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif — Luxembourg) — Tankreederei I SA v Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes
   (Case C-287/10) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Tax credit for investments - Grant linked to the physical use of the investments on national territory - Use of inland navigation vessels used in other Member States)
   2011/C 63/22
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tankreederei I SA

      Defendant: Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal administratif de Luxembourg — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC and 56 EC — Tax credits for investments — Legislation under which such a credit is granted only if the investment is made in an establishment situated in national territory and physically used in that territory — Company engaged in international shipping activities which is established and taxable in Luxembourg but has made an investment consisting of the acquisition of an asset used primarily outside of the national territory — Obstacle to the freedom to provide services and the free movement of capital

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 56 TFEU is to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State pursuant to which the benefit of a tax credit for investments is denied to an undertaking which is established solely in that Member State on the sole ground that the capital goods, in respect of which that credit is claimed, are physically used in the territory of another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 221, 14.08.2010.


title: Case C-289/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 15 July 2005 in Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län v Lapin liitto

text:
               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 15 July 2005 in Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län v Lapin liitto
   (Case C-289/05)
   (2005/C 271/24)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus of 15 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län and Lapin liitto on the interpretation of point 1.7 of rule 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 (1) (now point 1.8 of rule 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003. (2)

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 of 28 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds, OJ 2000 L 193, p. 39.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003 of 27 June 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 as regards the rules of eligibility for co-financing by the Structural Funds, OJ 2003 L 160, p. 48.


7.8.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 226/27
Action brought on 15 June 1999 by the Commission of                          Removal from the register of Case C-10/99 (1)
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (1999/C 226/48)
                        (Case C-230/99)
                                                                      By order of 29 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                        (1999/C 226/46)                               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                      the register of Case C-10/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
An action against the French Republic was brought before the          from the Amtsgericht München): Peter Feiler v Karlsruher
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 June               Lebensversicherungs-AG.
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal Adviser, and Olivier
Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to the        (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
Legal Service, acting as Agent with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Declare that, by adopting the order of 9 November 1994                     Removal from the register of Case C-63/98 (1)
    ‘concerning rubber material and rubber articles in contact
    with foodstuffs, food products and beverages for consump-
    tion’, without expressly recognising the technical rules                                  (1999/C 226/49)
    standards and manufacturing processes which are lawfully
    followed in the other Member States, and the findings             By order of 4 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
    from the related checks and tests carried out by an               of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
    inspection and supervisory body or a laboratory officially        the register of Case C-63/98: Commission of the European
    recognised in another Member State, the French Republic           Communities v Netherlands.
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 (ex
    Article 30) of the EC Treaty;
                                                                      (1) OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The effect of the French rules referred to in the application is
to prevent the marketing in France of the products concerned                 Removal from the register of Case C-311/98 (1)
which, albeit lawfully manufactured or marketed in another
Member State, do not comply with the French legislation;
those rules therefore constitute a restriction on intra-                                      (1999/C 226/50)
Community trace. The Commission does not deny that the
provisions of the above order are designed to meet public             By order of 21 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
health requirements, but it questions whether they are pro-           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
portionate in relation to the objective pursued in the absence        the register of Case C-311/98: Commission of the European
of any provision for the mutual recognition of products which         Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
ensure an equivalent lever of protection to that sought under
the French legislation.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-292/98 (1)
                        (1999/C 226/47)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-66/98 (1)
By order of 19 April 1999 the President of the Fourth Chamber                                 (1999/C 226/51)
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-292/98:               By order of 26 May 1999 the President of the Third Chamber
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.            of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                      ordered the removal from the register of Case C-66/98:
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                            Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1999.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 December 2004 in Case C-88/04: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2001/29/EC — Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society — Failure to implement within the period prescribed)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 9 December 2004
   in Case C-88/04: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/29/EC - Harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society - Failure to implement within the period prescribed)
   (2005/C 45/21)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-88/04: action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 23 February 2004, between Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Banks) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: R. Caudwell and K. Manji) – the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 December 2004 in which it:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-411/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 March 2008 — Aer Lingus Group v Commission (Interim measures — Control of concentrations — Decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market — Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 — Application for suspension of operation and for interim relief — Measure incompatible with the distribution of powers between institutions — Powers of the Commission — Interim measures addressed to an intervener — Application for suspension of operation — Admissibility — No prima facie case — Lack of urgency — Absence of serious and irreparable damage — Damage dependent on future, uncertain events — Insufficient reasons — Weighing of all the interests involved)

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/26

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 March 2008 — Aer Lingus Group v Commission
   (Case T-411/07 R)
   (Interim measures - Control of concentrations - Decision declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market - Article 8(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 - Application for suspension of operation and for interim relief - Measure incompatible with the distribution of powers between institutions - Powers of the Commission - Interim measures addressed to an intervener - Application for suspension of operation - Admissibility - No prima facie case - Lack of urgency - Absence of serious and irreparable damage - Damage dependent on future, uncertain events - Insufficient reasons - Weighing of all the interests involved)
   (2008/C 327/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Aer Lingus Group plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: A. Burnside, Solicitor, and B. van de Walle de Ghelcke and T. Snels, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, É. Gippini Fournier and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Ryanair Holdings plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: J. Swift, QC, V. Power, A. McCarthy and D. Hull, Solicitors, and G. Berrisch, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for interim measures seeking, first, an order requiring the Commission to adopt certain measures concerning Ryanair Holdings plc's shareholding in the applicant, second, alternatively, any order to similar effect against the Commission or Ryanair Holdings plc, and, third, suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2007) 4600 final of 11 October 2007 rejecting the applicant's request that proceedings be opened under Article 8(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1) and that interim measures be adopted under Article 8(5) of that regulation.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 14 May 1998 in Case T-348/94: Enso Española SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty - Right to an independant and impartial tribunal - Right of the defence - Statement of reasons - Fine - Determination of the amount - Method of calculation - Mitigating circumstances - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of proportionality)

text:
C 209/36              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
Alex Bonn, 7 Val Sainte-Croix v. Commission of the                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
European Communities (Agents: Bernd Langeheine,
                                                                                of 14 May 1998
Richard Lyal and Dirk Schroeder) Ð application for
annulment of Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July              in Case T-348/94: Enso EspanÄola SA v. Commission of the
1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC                              European Communities (1)
Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard, OJ L 243 of
19.9.1994, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber, Extended              (Competition Ð Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty Ð Right
Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President of             to an independant and impartial tribunal Ð Right of the
the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D.          defence Ð Statement of reasons Ð Fine Ð Determination
Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the        of the amount Ð Method of calculation Ð Mitigating
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 May 1998, in                 circumstances Ð Principle of equal treatment Ð Principle
which it:                                                                                of proportionality)
                                                                                (98/C 209/76)
1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the first to fourth
    paragraphs of Article 2 of Commission Decision 94/                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
    601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
    Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð
    Cartonboard) save and except the following passages:           In Case T-348/94: Enso EspanÄola SA, established at
                                                                   Castellbisbal, Barcelona, Spain, represented initially by
                                                                   Antonio Creus Carreras and Xavier Ruiz Calzado, of the
    The undertakings named in Article 1 shall forthwith           Brussels Bar, and Bonifacio García Porras, of the
    bring the said infringement to an end, if they have not        Salamanca Bar, then by Messrs. Creus Carreras, Ruiz Cal-
    already done so. They shall henceforth refrain in              zado and Eva Contreras Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar v.
    relation to their cartonboard activities from any              Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
    agreement or concerted practice which may have the             initially Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez Díaz and Richard
    same or a similar object or effect, including any              Lyal, then Richard Lyal and Ricardo Garcia Vicente) Ð
    exchange of commercial information:                            application for annulment of Commission Decision 94/
                                                                   601/EC of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                   Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard,
    (a) by which the participants are directly or
                                                                   OJ L 243 of 19.9.1994, p. 1), the Court (Third Chamber,
          indirectly informed of the production, sales, order
                                                                   Extended Composition), composed of B. Vesterdorf,
          backlog, machine utilisation rates, selling prices,
                                                                   President of the Chamber, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki
          costs or marketing plans of other individual
                                                                   and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez,
          producers.
                                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                   14 May 1998 in which it:
    Any scheme for the exchange of general information
    to which they subscribe, such as the Fides system or its       1. Annuls, as regards the applicant, Article 1 of
    successor, shall be so conducted as to exclude any                  Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 July 1994
    information from which the behaviour of individual                  relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
    producers can be identified.'.                                      Treaty (IV/C/33.833 Ð Cartonboard) in so far as the
                                                                        date of the beginning of the infringement alleged
                                                                        against it is stated to be prior to February 1989.
2. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the
    applicant by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU
    17 000 000.                                                    2. Annuls, as regards the applicant, the eighth indent of
                                                                        Article 1 of Decision 94/601/EC.
3. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
    claims.                                                        3. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
                                                                        by Article 3 of Decision 94/601/EC at ECU 1 200 000.
4. Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and one-
    quarter of the applicant's costs.                              4. Dismisses the application as regards the remaining
                                                                        claims.
5. Orders the applicant to bear three-quarters of its own
    costs.                                                         5. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
(1) OJ 386, 31.12.1994.                                            (1) OJ C 380, 31.12.1994.


title: Case C-254/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 8 May 2013 — Orgacom BVBA v Vlaamse Landmaatschappij

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/26

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 8 May 2013 — Orgacom BVBA v Vlaamse Landmaatschappij
   (Case C-254/13)
   2013/C 207/41
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Orgacom BVBA

      Respondent: Vlaamse Landmaatschappij

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the import levy described in Article 21(5) of the Decree [of the Flanders Region] of 23 January 1991 on protection of the environment against fertiliser pollution, which is imposed only on the importation from the other Member States of surpluses of manure derived both from livestock manure and from other manure, irrespective of whether these are further processed or marketed within the territory, and whereby the levy on those imported surpluses of manure is imposed on the importer, whereas in the case of surpluses of manure produced domestically the levy is imposed on the producer, to be regarded as a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports, within the terms of Article 30 TFEU, even though the Member State from which the surpluses of manure are exported itself provides for a reduction of the levy on the exportation of those surpluses of manure to other Member States?

               2.

               In so far as the import levy described in Article 21(5) of the Decree [of the Flanders Region] of 23 January 1991 on protection of the environment against fertiliser pollution, which is imposed only on the importation from the other Member States into the Flanders Region of surpluses of manure derived both from livestock manure and from other manure, cannot be regarded as a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty on imports, is that import levy to be regarded as constituting discriminatory taxation of the products of other Member States, within the terms of Article 110 TFEU, since livestock manure produced domestically is subject to a basic levy provided for by national legislation, the rate of which differs according to the production process, whereas in the case of imported surpluses of manure, irrespective of the production process (inter alia, the animal origin or the P2O5N content), an import levy is imposed at a uniform rate which is higher than the lowest rate of the basic levy for livestock manure produced in the Flanders Region (EUR 0.00), even though the Member State from which the surpluses of manure are exported itself provides for a reduction of the levy on the exportation of those surpluses of manure to other Member States?


               15.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 467/27

         Action brought on 26 September 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-14/16)
   (2016/C 467/14)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 26 September 2016 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Audur Ýr Steinarsdóttir and Øyvind Bø, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 17d of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, by:

                           i.

                           failing to ensure that a representative proportion of consignments of dangerous goods transported by road is subject to checks, as required by Article 3(1);

                           ii.

                           failing to use the checklist in Annex I of the Directive when carrying out those checks, as required by Article 4(1);

                           iii.

                           failing to ensure that the checks under the Directive are random and that they as far as possible cover an extensive portion of the road network, as required by Article 4(2);

                           iv.

                           failing to ensure that the places chosen for the checks permit infringing vehicles to be brought into compliance or, if the authority carrying out the check deems it appropriate to be immobilised on-the-spot or at a place designated for that purpose by the said authority without causing a safety hazard, as required by Article 4(3);

                           v.

                           failing to ensure where appropriate, and where it does not constitute a safety hazard, samples of the goods transported may be taken for examination by laboratories recognised by the competent authority, as required by Article 4(4);

                           vi.

                           failing to ensure that the checks do not exceed a reasonable time, as required by Article 4(5);

                           vii.

                           failing to ensure that vehicles in respect of which one or more infringements of the rules on the transport of dangerous goods are established may be immobilised either on-the-spot or at a place designated for this purpose by the authorities carrying out the check and required to be brought into conformity before continuing their journey or may be subject to other appropriate measures, depending on the circumstances or the requirements of safety, as required by Article 5;

                           viii.

                           failing to ensure that checks may also be carried out at the premises of undertakings, as required by Article 6(1); and

                           ix.

                           failing to send ESA a yearly report as required by Article 9(1).

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 16 November 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 16 September 2015 regarding that State’s failure to fulfil its obligations under the Act referred to at point 17d of Chapter II of Annex XIII to the EEA Agreement (Council Directive 95/50/EC of 6 October 1995 on uniform procedures for checks on the transport of dangerous goods by road), as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1.


title: Case C-104/11 P: Appeal brought on 1 March 2011 by Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep, formerly Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS), against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Joined Cases T-231/06 and T-237/06 Kingdom of the Netherlands (T-231/06) and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) (T-237/06) v European Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/2

         Appeal brought on 1 March 2011 by Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep, formerly Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS), against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber, extended composition) delivered on 16 December 2010 in Joined Cases T-231/06 and T-237/06 Kingdom of the Netherlands (T-231/06) and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) (T-237/06) v European Commission

   (Case C-104/11 P)
   2011/C 238/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Stichting Nederlandse Publieke Omroep, formerly Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) (represented by: J.J. Feenstra, advocaat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Kingdom of the Netherlands, European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 in Joined Cases T-231/06 and T-237/06;

               —

               since the state of the proceedings so permits, annul Commission Decision 2008/136/EC (1) of 22 June 2006 on the ad hoc financing of Dutch public service broadcasters (NPO);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of the appeal before the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

                     First plea in law: infringement of Articles 107 TFEU, 108 TFEU and 296 TFEU in so far as the General Court erroneously and on the basis of insufficient reasoning considered the Broadcasting Reserve Fund (FOR) monies and transfer back to the NPO of certain built-up reserves by individual broadcasting entities to be a form of grant of new aid

               The General Court erred in interpreting and applying the concepts of aid, existing aid and new aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU et seq. by finding that the availability of FOR funds and the transfer back to the NPO by individual Dutch broadcasting entities of certain built-up reserves must be deemed to be a grant of new aid, without providing sufficient reasoning in that regard.

                     Second plea in law: infringement of the rights of the defence.

               The General Court infringed the requirement to observe the rights of the defence enshrined in European Union law and the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU and Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) by wrongly and on the basis of erroneous and insufficient reasoning rejecting the appellant’s plea for observance of the rights of the defence and by ruling that the NPO’s rights of defence had not been infringed.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 49, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-252/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil Mixte d'Appel d'Expression Française de l'Ordre des Médecins Vétérinaires by a decision of 10 June 2000 in the case of Dr Jean-Michel Vandeweerd

text:
26.8.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 247/23
that the particular legislation constitutes discrimination incom-        ‘Does Regulation 2200/96 (1) (and did Regulation 1035/72 (2)
patible with the Treaty in the field of the free movement of             when it was in force) give rise to a legal duty resting upon
capital (Article 56 EC, ex Article 73b).                                 persons who trade in a fruit or a vegetable within the
                                                                         Community to comply with the requirements as regards
                                                                         variety name laid down by a quality standard which is
                                                                         applicable to that fruit or vegetable, which a national court
                                                                         should enforce in civil proceedings brought at the suit of a
                                                                         person who is a substantial grower within the Community of
                                                                         the fruit or vegetable concerned?’
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil Mixte
d’Appel d’Expression Française de l’Ordre des Médecins
Vétérinaires by a decision of 10 June 2000 in the case of                (1) of the Council of 28 October 1996 on the common organization
                                                                             of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1).
                 Dr Jean-Michel Vandeweerd
                                                                         (2) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972, p. 1.
                         (Case C-252/00)
                         (2000/C 247/32)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Conseil Mixte
d’Appel d’Expression Française de l’Ordre des Médecins Vétéri-
naires (French language Joint Appeal Board of the Association
of Veterinary Surgeons, Belgium) of 10 June 2000, which was
received at the Court Registry on 26 June 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Jean-Michel Vandeweerd.
The Conseil Mixte d’Appel d’Expression Française de l’Ordre
des Médecins Vétérinaires asks the Court of Justice to rule on           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
the following question:                                                  Trento — Special Section — by order of that court of
                                                                         6 June 2000 in the case of Grundig Italiana SpA against
                                                                                Ministero delle Finanze
On a proper construction, does Article 85 of the EC Treaty
prohibit the ban on advertising laid down by the Upper
Council of the Association of Veterinary Surgeons in the 1983                                       (Case C-255/00)
Code of Conduct, in particular in so far as the Code does not
allow objective information to be given in a professional
context about an artificial insemination centre for horses run                                      (2000/C 247/34)
by a veterinary surgeon?
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Trento
                                                                         (District Court, Trento) of 6 June 2000, received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 26 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                         of Grundig Italiana SpA against Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                         (Ministry of Finance) on the following question:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division, by order of that court
of 14 June 2000, in the case of 1) Antonio Muñoz y Cia                  ‘Is a national provision, namely the last part of Article 29(1)
SA and 2) Superior Fruiticola SA against 1) Frumar Ltd                   of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990, compatible with
          and 2) Redbridge Produce Marketing Ltd                         Community law and in particular with the often stated
                                                                         principle of effectiveness (inter alia, Case C-343/1996 Dilex-
                                                                         port, Case C-260/1996 Spac, Case C-231/1996 Edis, Case
                         (Case C-253/00)
                                                                         C-228/1996 Aprile, Case C-261/1995 Palmisani) where it lays
                                                                         down a period of grace of 90 days within which, in order to
                         (2000/C 247/33)                                 avoid the three-year time-limit introduced retroactively in
                                                                         place of a previous five-year limitation period, a party enjoying
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   a right to recover a sum paid but not due resulting from a
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal                  payment made prior to the entry into force of the said
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) of 14 June 2000, which was            provision must bring a legal action?’
received at the Court Registry on 26 June 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of 1) Antonio Muñoz y Cia SA
and 2) Superior Fruiticola SA against 1) Frumar Ltd and 2)
Redbridge Produce Marketing Ltd, on the following question:


C 146/36               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                    21.6.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-107/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-192/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/60)                                                       (2003/C 146/63)
By order of 4 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 7 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-107/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-192/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                            Communities v Republic of Austria.
( 1) OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-149/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-343/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/61)                                                       (2003/C 146/64)
By order of 6 March 2003 the President of the Court of Justice        By order of 2 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-149/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-343/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.                             Communities v French Republic.
( 1) OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-155/02 ( 1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-363/02 ( 1)
                        (2003/C 146/62)                                                       (2003/C 146/65)
By order of 10 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice       By order of 3 April 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-155/02: Commission of the European                 register of Case C-363/02: Commission of the European
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                    Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Vienna) by order of that court of 27 October 1997 in the case of STUAG Bau-Aktiengesellschaft against the State Government of Carinthia (Kärntner Landesregierung) (Case C-390/97)

text:
C 7/10                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10. 1. 98
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Council              Reference      for    a     preliminary   ruling    by     the
of State by decisions of that court of 29 October 1997 in             Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Vienna) by order of that court of
the following cases: Fromagerie Philipona and SocieÂteÂ               27 October 1997 in the case of STUAG Bau-
Fromagerie Franc-Comtoise Ð Intervener: Institut national             Aktiengesellschaft against the State Government of
des appellations d'origine; SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie Lincet,                          Carinthia (Kärntner Landesregierung)
SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie d'Epoisses, Yves Chiciak, SocieÂteÂ                                     (Case C-390/97)
Forster SaÁrl, SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie Maurice Girard Ð
Interveners: Institut national des appellations d'origine and                                   (98/C 7/23)
                    SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie AFT
            (Joined Cases C-388/97 and C-389/97)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            (98/C 7/22)                               European        Communities        by   order      of      the
                                                                      Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court), Vienna, of
                                                                      27 October 1997, received at the Court Registry on
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                17 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
European Communities by decisions of the French Council               STUAG Bau-Aktiengesellschaft v. State Government of
of State of 29 October 1997, which were received at the               Carinthia (Kärntner Landesregierung) on the following
Court Registry on 17 November 1997 for a preliminary                  question:
ruling in the following cases: Fromagerie Philipona and
SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie Franc-Comtoise Ð Intervener: Institut            Does Article 33 (1) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/
national des appellations d'origine (Case C-388/97);                  EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws
SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie Lincet, SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie d'Epoisses,         of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð
Yves Chiciak, SocieÂteÂ Forster SaÁrl, SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie           Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
Maurice Girard Ð Interveners: Institut national des                   assessment (1) preclude, on the ground that it is in the
appellations d'origine and SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie AFT (Case             nature of a turnover tax, the maintenance in force of a tax
C-389/97), on the following questions:                                which is payable in a Bundesland (regional state) of a
                                                                      Member State of the European Communities in respect of
1. Following the entry into force            of the Council           each calendar year by all undertakings directly or
     Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14       July 1992 (1) and        indirectly involved in tourism which have their registered
     prior to the entry into force of         Regulation (EC)         office or a place of business within that regional state, and
     No 535/97 of 17 March 1997 (2),          did the national        the amount of which is essentially proportional to the
     authorities lose all competence          in matters of           turnover achieved by the undertaking in that regional state
     designations of origin?                                          within a calendar year, but where the rate of contribution
                                                                      varies according to the degree of benefit which the
                                                                      legislature deems the commercial sector in question
2. May Article 1 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 535/97 of                 (occupational group) to derive from tourism, and where
     17 March 1997 be interpreted as retroactively                    no provision is made for the deduction of input tax?
     conferring competence on the national authorities to
     amend the characteristics of a designation which was             (1) OJ L 145, 13. 6. 1977, p. 1.
     in the course of being registered at Community level
     under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
     Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992?
3. In the event that the national authorities have retained
     a subsidiary competence, does that competence enable             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
     them to amend:                                                   Köln by order of that court of 27 October 1997 in the
                                                                      case of Frans Gschwind against Finanzamt Aachen-
     Ð the conditions for production of manufacture of a                                        Aussenstadt
          product covered by a designation which is in the                                   (Case C-391/97)
          course of being registered (Case C-388/97),
                                                                                (98/C 7/24)
     Ð the name of a designation (Case C-389/97)?
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the        European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
    protection of geographical indications and designations of        Köln (Finance Court, Cologne) of 27 October 1997,
    origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208,        received at the Court Registry on 17 November 1997, for
    24. 7. 1992, p. 1).
                                                                      a preliminary ruling in the case of Frans Gschwind v.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 535/97 of 17 March 1997
    amending Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of         Finanzamt Aachen-Aussenstadt on the following question:
    geographical indications and designations of origin for
    agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 83, 25. 3. 1997,
                                                                      Is it contrary to Article 48 of the EC Treaty for
    p. 3).
                                                                      Paragraph 1.3, second sentence, in conjunction with
                                                                      Paragraph 1a.1.2 of the Einkommensteuergesetz (German
                                                                      law on income tax; EStG') to provide that a Netherlands


title: Case C-160/08: Action brought on 16 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/19

         Action brought on 16 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-160/08)
   (2008/C 209/27)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by M. Kellerbauer and D. Kukovec, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to publish notices of contracts awarded and by failing to make a public call for tenders or failing transparently to award service contracts in the field of public ambulance services, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directives 92/50/EEC (1) and 2004/18/EC (2) and infringed the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services (Articles 43 EC and 49 EC);

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission states that its attention has been drawn by several complaints to the procurement practice for service contracts in the field of public ambulance services in the Federal Republic of Germany. Those complaints objected to the fact that contracts in that field were, as a rule, not the subject of a call for tenders and not awarded transparently. In the Commission's view, the generally small number of Europe-wide calls for tenders for ambulance services by local authorities as bodies responsible for the public ambulance service (13 contract notices in a period of six years, by only 11 out of the 400-plus German districts and cities with district status) is evidence of a widespread practice in Germany of not awarding those ambulance services in accordance with the requirements of the European procurement directives and the fundamental principles of Community law. Moreover, those contracts were awarded without measures to ensure the appropriate transparency and to avoid discrimination.
   It says that by that award practice the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC and infringed the principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services laid down in Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, in particular the prohibition of discrimination contained in those principles.
   Local authorities as bodies responsible for the ambulance service are contracting authorities within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Directive 92/50/EEC or Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC. It should also be undisputed that contracts awarded in the field of public ambulance services constitute public contracts for consideration that are caught by those directives and clearly exceed the relevant threshold value for the directives to be applicable. It follows from all those circumstances that the contracts for services in question should have been awarded in the procedures laid down by the directives and in compliance with their general provisions on equal treatment and non-discrimination.
   Since the present case concerns contracts of obvious cross-border interest, in addition to the obligations under Directives 92/50/EEC and 2004/18/EC the general principles of freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services under the EC Treaty were also infringed by the awards that were made without transparency.
   Ambulance services, like transport services and medical services in the context of the public ambulance service, do not fall within the exceptions in Article 45 EC in conjunction with Article 55 EC, under which activities which in a given Member State are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority are excluded, as far as that State is concerned, from the chapter of the EC Treaty on freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. The exception in Article 45 EC, which as an exception to the fundamental freedoms must be interpreted strictly, is strictly limited to those activities which constitute as such a direct and specific participation in the exercise of public power. The question of whether public power is being exercised is not to be answered by reference to the public-law nature of the activity in question; rather, what is decisive is the possibility of making use, as against the citizen, of public powers and powers of coercion.
   The Commission is convinced that the award practice in the field of the ambulance service could, even if foreign providers of services take part, be designed in such a way that a comprehensive, rapid and high-quality ambulance service is ensured throughout the country.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114.


title: Case T-172/99: Action brought on 26 July 1999 by Francesca Pentericci against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
2.10.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 281/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty. On 23 April 1999,
                                                                        the Commission repaid to the applicant the sum of EUR
    pursuant to Article 40 CS:                                          12 million. It declared however that it considered that it was
                                                                        not required to pay interest on this sum.
    — order the Commission to pay to British Steel the sum
         of GBP 3 533 474, or such other sum as the Court               The applicant submits that, having imposed and received
         deems appropriate:                                             payment of a fine which was, to the extent identified by the
                                                                        Court, unlawful, the Commission has wrongly refused to pay
                                                                        the applicant pecuniary reparation in the form of interest on
    — order the Commission to pay to British Steel interest             the fine paid by it. As a direct result of this attitude of the
         at a rate which the Court considers to be just in all the      Commission, which constitutes a ‘wrongful act or omission’
         circumstances on the sum of GBP 3 533 474 (or such             within the meaning of Article 40 CS, the applicant has suffered
         other sum, as aforesaid) from 24 April 1999 until final        considerable monetary loss. The Commission should therefore
         judgment of this Court;                                        be ordered to pay it compensation equivalent to its loss of
                                                                        earnings on the sum of ECU/EUR 12 million from the date
    — order the Commission to pay to British Steel interest             when the fine was paid by it until 23 April 1999, together
         at 8 % on such compensation as the Court orders to be          with interest on that sum until the date of payment.
         paid under subparagraphs (a) and (b) above as from
         the date of the Court’s final judgment in this case until      In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission
         payment thereof;                                               is liable to it pursuant Article 34 CS. According to the
                                                                        provisions of that article, where a decision of the Commission
    or, in the alternative: pursuant to Article 34 CS:                  has been declared void by the Court, the Commission should
                                                                        take the necessary measures to comply with the judgement. If,
                                                                        within a reasonable time, the Commission has failed to take
    — declare that Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC was
                                                                        the necessary steps to comply with the judgment, proceedings
         vitiated by faults of such nature as to render the
                                                                        for damages may be instituted. In the present case, the
         Community fiable;
                                                                        Commission has failed to take the necessary measures to
                                                                        comply with the judgment since it has not effected a full
    — declare that, as a result of the Commission’s fault,              restitutio in integrum by compensating the applicant for its loss
         British steel has suffered direct and special harm in          of earnings on the sum of fine unlawfully imposed by the
         being unlawfully deprived of the use of ECU/EUR                Commission.
         12 000 000 from the date of payment of that sum to
         the Commission on 2 June 1994;
                                                                        (1) OJ 1994 L 116/1.
    — refer the case to the Commission and order it to adopt
         appropriate measures in order to ensure equitable
         redress for the harm directly resulting from the Com-
         mission’s conduct, and to pay appropriate damages as
         far as may be necessary;
    and in either case:
                                                                        Action brought on 26 July 1999 by Francesca Pentericci
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
    — order the Commission to pay British Steel’s costs.
                                                                                (Case T-172/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (1999/C 281/48)
The applicant states that on 16 February 1994 the Commission
adopted Decision 94/215/ECSC relating to a proceeding                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agree-
ments and concerted practices engaged in by European
producers of beams (the ‘Decision’) (1). A fine of ECU 32 mil-          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
lion was imposed on the applicant. On 13 April 1994, the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
applicant lodged an application for the annulment of the                European Communities on 26 July 1999 by Francesca Pente-
Decision al the Court of First Instance (Case T-151/94).                ricci, represented by Marcello Pentericci, of the Ancona Bar,
Nevertheless, on 2 June 1994, it paid to the Commission the             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
entirety of the fine imposed on it.                                     Jean Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
On 11 March 1999, the Court delivered its judgment in Case
T-151/94. In the judgment, the Court sets the amount of the             — annul the decision by which the selection board in
fine imposed on the applicant at EUR 20 million. For the claim               competition No COM A/12/98 refused to admit her to the
for interest, the Court notes that it is for the Commission to               written tests in the competition, and consequently order
take the necessary steps to comply with the judgment, in                     that she be admitted thereto;
 ---pagebreak--- C 281/26               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
— order the selection board to pay compensation for the                  — annul any recruitments made by the Commission in
    damage caused, in such amount as the Court shall consider                consequence of competition No COM/A/15/98 and on the
    fair and reasonable;                                                     basis of the lists of suitable candidates published in the
                                                                             Official Journal on 3 July 1999;
— order the selection board to pay the costs, pursuant to
    Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure.                                — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests the decision of the selection board in            The applicants contest, in particular, the manner in which
competition No COM A/12/98 by which it decided, on the                   competition No COM/A/15/98 was conducted and the results
ground that she allegedly lacked the minimum requisite                   thereof. They maintain in that connection that the competition
professional experience, as provided for in the competition              notice provided for two options, namely ‘fraud prevention’
notice, not admit her to the written tests.                              and ‘justice and home affairs’. According to the applicants, the
                                                                         tests in respect of the ‘justice and home affairs’ option related
In support of her claims, the applicant advances the following           very extensively to the combatting of fraud, with the result
pleas:                                                                   that there was discrimination in favour of candidates who had
                                                                         chosen the first option.
— infringement and misapplication of Article III(3) of the
    notice of competition;                                               In support of their claims, the applicants plead:
— breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;            — infringement of the terms of the competition notice;
    and
                                                                         — contravention of the principle of equality between candi-
— failure to have regard to the general principle of sound                   dates;
    administration and transparency.
                                                                         — failure to observe the principle of sound administration;
According to the applicant, the competition notice recognised                and
as valid evidence of professional experience periods of appren-          — misuse of powers in the present case.
ticeship, specialisation or professional training, apart from
supplementary training periods. She maintains in that regard
                                                                         In the latter regard, the applicants maintain that the defendant
that the Commission failed to take account of all the certificates
                                                                         used the procedure for pre-selection on the basis of the
and attestations contained in the competition file. At all events,
                                                                         documentation in order to attempt to eliminate the partici-
had the defendant considered that documentation was unclear,
                                                                         pation of Mr Mazuel as a candidate in the competition. In
it should at least have asked for explanatory clarification in
                                                                         addition, it is clear from a comparison between the directory
relation to it.
                                                                         of Commission staff and the names of the persons included in
                                                                         the list of suitable candidates that the competition was
                                                                         organised with a view to offering establishment to contractual
                                                                         agents of the Commission and not with a view to the
                                                                         external recruitment of true specialists possessing skills and
                                                                         qualifications corresponding to the objectives publicised in the
                                                                         notice of competition.
Action brought on 29 July 1999 by Gilbert Elkaïm and
Philippe Mazuel against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                         (Case T-173/99)
                         (1999/C 281/49)                                 Action brought on 30 July 1999 by Ana Caprile and
                                                                         Others against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Case T-174/99)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (1999/C 281/50)
European Communities on 29 July 1999 by Gilbert Elkaïm
residing in Paris, and Philippe Mazuel, residing in Brussels,
represented by Nicolas Ravailhe, of the Brussels Bar, with an                               (Language of the case: French)
address for service at the latter’s Chambers, 6 Rue Hydraulique,
Brussels.                                                                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              European Communities on 30 July 1999 by Ana Caprile,
— annul open competition No COM/A/15/98;                                 residing in Belgium, Fabrizio Dell’Olio, residing in Italy, and
                                                                         Konrad Fuhrmann and Olivier Radelet, residing in Belgium,
— annul the lists of suitable candidates published, following            represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the
    that competition, on 3 July 1999 in the Official Journal (OJ         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    C 187, p. 22);                                                       offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.


title: Case T-402/09 P: Order of the General Court of 5 May 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and occupational disease for officials of the European Communities — Procedure for the recognition of the occupational origin of a disease — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/26

         Order of the General Court of 5 May 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-402/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Rules on insurance against the risk of accident and occupational disease for officials of the European Communities - Procedure for the recognition of the occupational origin of a disease - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2011/C 186/48
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

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

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis Kayser, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 20 July 2009 in Case F-86/07 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking the annulment of that order.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and in part as manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered, in addition to bearing his own costs, to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case C-369/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — State aid — Measures for compliance with a judgment of the Court — Article 228 EC — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Lump sum payment)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-369/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - State aid - Measures for compliance with a judgment of the Court - Article 228 EC - Financial penalties - Penalty payment - Lump sum payment)
   2009/C 205/05
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini, I. Hadjiyiannis and D.Triantafyllou, Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: A. Samoni-Rantou and P. Mylonopoulos, Agents, and V. Christianos and P. Anestis, dikigoroi)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 228 EC — Non-compliance with the judgment of the Court of 12 May 2005 in Case C-415/03 — Infringement of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways (OJ 2003 L 132, p. 1) — Failure to take measures to recover aid incompatible with the Treaty and aid granted unlawfully — Application for imposition of a penalty payment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, by the date on which the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion expired, the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-415/03 Commission v Greece concerning repayment of the aid found to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market in accordance with Article 3 of Commission Decision 2003/372/EC of 11 December 2002 on aid granted by Greece to Olympic Airways, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that decision and under Article 228(1) EC.

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the ‘European Community own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 16 000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-415/03 Commission v Greece, from one month after the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-415/03 is complied with.

               3.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the ‘European Community own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 2 million.

               4.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Case C-423/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 27 August 2010 — Delphi Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 27 August 2010 — Delphi Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
   (Case C-423/10)
   ()
   2010/C 317/30
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Delphi Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

      Question referred

   Do the electrical connectors described in this Order come under subheading 8536 69 of the Combined Nomenclature in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 (2) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, (3) which were adopted to amend Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2006 L 301, p. 1.