title: Case T-417/04: Action brought on 15 October 2004 by Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/52

         Action brought on 15 October 2004 by Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-417/04)
   (2004/C 300/102)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 October 2004 by Regione Autonoma Friuli Venezia Giulia, represented by Enzo Bevilacqua and Fausto Capelli.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the explanatory note attached to item no 103 in Annex I to Commission Regulation No 1429/2004 concerning the limitation in time on the use of the name ‘Tocai friulano’ up to 31 March 2007;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Article 1(5) of Commission Regulation No 1429/2004 (1) amending Commission Regulation No 753/2002 replaces Annex II to the amended Regulation No 753/2002 by a new annex (Annex I) which maintains, for wine derived from the grape type ‘Tocai friulano’ (item no 103 in the new Annex I), on the basis of an added explanatory note, the limitation in time up to 31 March 2007 on the use of that name, as already contained in Annex II to Regulation No 753/2002. The present application seeks the annulment of the explanatory note that refers to the use of the name ‘Tocai friulano’.
   In support of its contentions the applicant makes the following submissions:

               —

               Pursuant to Article 59(1) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, following the entry into force on 1 May 2004 of the Treaty of Accession of Hungary and the other Member States, all provisions contained in previous treaties concluded between Hungary and the European Community lapsed unless they were expressly included in that Accession Treaty.

               —

               Lack of competence on the part of the Commission to abolish rights in the area of the application of Article 19 of Regulation No 753/2002 in so far as, if the Commission had the power under Article 53 of the basic regulation (Regulation No 1493/1999) to determine in which country a specific variety of grape could be grown, it had no power to abolish a variety of grape long cultivated in a Member State in view of the fact that the Member States alone are authorised to take such a decision.

               —

               Infringement of the prohibition of discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC. That prohibition, which could not have been applied in regard to Hungary prior to its accession, has, by contrast, become applicable in full since that country became a Member State.

               —

               Finally, the applicant submits that there has been an infringement of the principle of proportionality and a breach of property rights.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1429/2004 of 9 August 2004 amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 of 29 April 2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ L 263 of 10.08.2004, p. 11).


title: Case C-266/06 P: Appeal brought on 17 June 2006 by Degussa AG against the judgment delivered on 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 Degussa AG v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/12

         Appeal brought on 17 June 2006 by Degussa AG against the judgment delivered on 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 Degussa AG v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-266/06 P)
   (2006/C 190/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Degussa AG (represented by: R. Bechtold, M. Karl and C. Steinle, lawyers,)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Council of the European Union
   Forms of order sought

               1.

               Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 (1), in so far as it affects the appellant.

               2.

               Annulment of the Commission's decision of 2 July 2002 (Case C.37.519 — Methionin) in so far as it affects the appellant.
               In the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant by Article 3 of that decision;

               3

               In the alternative to 2 above, referral of the matter back to the Court of First Instance for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

               4.

               The Commission to pay the claimant's costs before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in any event.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant makes four pleas on appeal:

               —

               First, that the Court of First Instance disregarded the principle of certainty (nulla poena sine lege certa) in relation to penal provisions, and consequently wrongly denied the unlawfulness of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17.

               —

               Second, that the Court of First Instance distorted the facts in its assessment of the duration of the infringement, and infringed the presumption of innocence (in dubio pro reo) and the basic right to a fair hearing.

               —

               Third, that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of proportionality (in the form of the principle that punishment should be proportionate to fault), by setting the basic amount of the fine at EUR 30 million, even though the infringement had little impact on the price of methionine. At the same time, the Court infringed the duty to state reasons by stating contradictory reasons.

               —

               Fourth, the Court of First Instance did not reduce the addition to the basic amount of the fine, which is designed to have a sufficiently deterrent effect, in accordance with the difference in size between the appellant and Aventis, and thereby infringed the principle of equal treatment.

      (1)  OJ 2006 C 131, p. 37.


title: Case T-778/15: Action brought on 28 December 2015 — It Works v OHIM — KESA Holdings Luxembourg (IT it WORKS)

text:
               7.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/21

         Action brought on 28 December 2015 — It Works v OHIM — KESA Holdings Luxembourg (IT it WORKS)
   (Case T-778/15)
   (2016/C 090/29)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: It Works S.A. (Krakow, Poland) (represented by: J. Aftyka, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: KESA Holdings Luxembourg Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘IT it WORKS’ — Application for registration No 10 359 222

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 October 2015 in Case R 2106/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision with respect to the services for which the opposition has been upheld;

               —

               annul the decision of the Opposition Division dated 17/06/2014 in opposition proceedings No B 001988727 with respect to the services for which the opposition has been upheld;

               —

               refer the case back to OHIM so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and register Community Trade Mark No 010359222 in respect of all the services covered, without prejudice to those which are uncontested;

               —

               charge the OHIM with the costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-19/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v Innova Vital GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Nutrition and health claims made on foods — Article 1(2) — Scope — Foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer — Claims made in a commercial communication addressed exclusively to health professionals)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht München I — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v Innova Vital GmbH
   (Case C-19/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Nutrition and health claims made on foods - Article 1(2) - Scope - Foods to be delivered as such to the final consumer - Claims made in a commercial communication addressed exclusively to health professionals))
   (2016/C 335/13)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht München I

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

      Defendant: Innova Vital GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1047/2012 of 8 November 2012, must be interpreted as meaning that nutrition or health claims made in a commercial communication on a food which is intended to be delivered as such to the final consumer, if that communication is addressed not to the final consumer, but exclusively to health professionals, falls within the scope of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case C-379/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeitsgericht by order of that court of 23 March 1999 in the case of Pensionskasse für die Angestellten der Barmer Ersatzkasse VVAG v Hans Menauer

text:
18.12.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 366/19
     under tariff headings 2 1 1 1, 2 1 1 2 and 2 1 1 3. Since          Pleas in law and main arguments
     the expenditure declared by Spain under tariff heading
     2 1 1 3 was negative, it was considered that the Com-
     mission would not take account of that line for the                The action is directed against the fact that the contested
     purposes of the calculation of the total amount of the             decision charged to the Federal Republic of Germany, with
     financial adjustment. However, the adjustment in respect           respect to Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, instead of a financial
     of heading 2 1 1 3 made by the Commission corresponds              correction of 2 % a correction of 5 %, and hence an amount in
     solely to the item relating to purchases and not to the total      excess of DEM 12 157 646,13, namely DEM 18 236 469,20,
     amount of expenditure declared by Spain under the tariff           for 1995 for the arable crops sector.
     heading during the financial year, which significantly
     increases the proposed adjustment, thus departing from
     the letter of the official communication.                          The Commission was not able, in the annex to the Summary
                                                                        Report, to produce any comprehensible and substantiated
                                                                        reasons to show that the entire ‘on-the-spot control’ measure
(C) The differences found during the prior inspection referred
                                                                        in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern was defective and that all the
     to in the summary report are similar to those detected in
                                                                        defects taken together led to a substantial risk of loss for the
     other Member States, where the percentage applied in the
                                                                        EAGGF, justifying a correction of 5 %. In particular, it was
     financial adjustment has been only 2 % as opposed to the
                                                                        unable, on the basis of its inspection visit to Mecklenburg-
     5 % applied to Spain.
                                                                        Vorpommern in 1998, to adduce any new facts capable of
                                                                        justifying that assessment.
(1) OJ L 182 of 16 July 1994, p. 45.
                                                                        The increase of the financial correction from 2 % to 5 % by
                                                                        the Commission is unlawful because the Commission complied
                                                                        neither with the principle that the administrative authorities
                                                                        are bound by the reservation they formulated nor with the
                                                                        necessary procedural rules with respect to the procedure
                                                                        for closure of the accounts, in particular arbitration. The
                                                                        Commission further incorrectly exercised its discretion with
                                                                        respect to assessment of the defects actually found.
Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the Federal Repub-                  Altogether, the Commission has not shown conclusively why
lic of Germany against the Commission of the European                   in its definitive fixing of the financial correction it departed
                            Communities                                 both from its originally intended rate of correction and from
                                                                        the rate proposed by the arbitration body of not more than
                                                                        2 %.
                          (Case C-377/99)
                          (1999/C 366/30)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 7 October 1999 by the Federal Republic of
Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,
and Claus-Dieter Quassowski, Regierungsdirektor, of the Feder-          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
al Ministry of Financial Affairs, 108 Graurheindorfer Strasse,          gericht by order of that court of 23 March 1999 in the
D-53117 Bonn.                                                           case of Pensionskasse für die Angestellten der Barmer
                                                                                Ersatzkasse VVAG v Hans Menauer
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case C-379/99)
— Annul Commission Decision COM(1999) 2476 fin. of
     28 July 1999 amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the
     clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States                                   (1999/C 366/31)
     in respect of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee
     Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so far as under Article 2 the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
     sum of DEM 18 236 469,20 is not accepted by the EAGGF
                                                                        (Federal Labour Court) of 23 March 1999, received at the
     but charged to the Federal Republic of Germany;
                                                                        Court Registry on 7 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                        the case of Pensionskasse für die Angestellten der Barmer
— Order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 Ersatzkasse VVAG v Hans Menauer on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- C 366/20                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.12.1999
Must Article 119 of the EC Treaty [Articles 117 to 120 of the             Pleas in law and main arguments
Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC] be
interpreted to mean that pension funds must be considered to              The third paragraph of Article 249 EC requires each Member
be employers and are obliged to treat men and women equally               State to which a directive is addressed to transpose the
as regards payments of occupational old-age pensions, even                provisions thereof into national law within the time-limit
though disadvantaged employees have a claim, which is                     prescribed for that purpose, in such a way as to give full effect
protected in the event of insolvency and therefore precludes              thereto. The time-limit laid down in Article 3 of the directive
discrimination, against the body directly responsible for pro-            expired on 31 May 1998, but Germany has not adopted the
vision of a pension, that is to say their employer as a party to          necessary measures in that regard.
the employment contract.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 265 of 18.10.1996, p. 17.
                                                                          Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany
Action brought on 8 October 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                                             (Case C-387/99)
                            lic of Germany
                                                                                (1999/C 366/33)
                           (Case C-386/99)
                                                                          An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                          brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                          (1999/C 366/32)                                 ties on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal
                                                                          Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-              Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
ties on 8 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its              (1) declare that, by classifying as medicinal products vitamin
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                 and mineral nutrient preparations which have been law-
                                                                               fully produced and/or placed on the market as food
                                                                               supplements in other Member States, where the daily dose
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    of such vitamins and minerals is more than three times
                                                                               that recommended by the German Gesellschaft für Ernäh-
                                                                               rung, the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed its
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and                obligations under Article 28 EC;
     administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
     Commission Directive 96/65/EC (1) of 11 October 1996                 (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
     adapting to technical progress for the fourth time Council,
     Directive 88/379/EEC on the approximation of the laws,
     regulations and administrative provisions of the Member              Pleas in law and main arguments
     States relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
     of dangerous preparations and modifying Directive                    Infringement of Article 28 EC: the obstacle to trade resulting
     91/442/EEC on dangerous preparations the packaging of                from the practice followed by the German administrative
     which must be fitted with child-resistant fastenings, the            authorities and courts cannot be justified on grounds of public
     Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its                 health or consumer protection, since that practice is not in
     obligations under the third paragraph of Article 249 EC in           accordance with the principle of proportionality. It is an
     conjunction with Article 3(1) of that directive;                     established scientific fact that the threshold at which increasing
                                                                          doses of vitamins become harmful is not reached at the same
                                                                          rate in the case of all vitamins. Consequently, to regard all
(2) alternatively, declare that the Federal Republic of Germany           vitamins in global/abstract terms, in such a way as necessarily
     has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify the Commission         to apply the strictest criterion, is to go beyond what is
     without delay of the measures taken to transpose the                 necessary and permissible in order to achieve the goal of health
     directive;                                                           protection under Community law; it is disproportionate.
(3) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Case T-220/15: Action brought on 4 May 2015 — Beele Engineering v OHIM (WE CARE)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/19

         Action brought on 4 May 2015 — Beele Engineering v OHIM (WE CARE)
   (Case T-220/15)
   (2015/C 228/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Beele Engineering BV (Aalten, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Ring, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WE CARE’ — Application for registration No 12 610 143

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2015 in Case R 1424/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-542/09: Action brought on 18 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/31

         Action brought on 18 December 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-542/09)
   2010/C 63/50
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by requiring that migrant workers and family members for whom they still provide must fulfil a residence requirement (the ‘3 out of 6 rule’) in order to be eligible under the WSF (1) for the funding of educational studies abroad, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68; (2)

               —

               order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   As the Netherlands has still not adopted all the measures necessary to put an end to the residence requirement (the ‘3 out of 6 rule’), which migrant workers and family members for whom they still provide must fulfil in order to be eligible under the WSF for the funding of educational studies abroad, the Commission draws the conclusion that the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Regulation No 1612/68.

      (1)  Wet Studiefinanciering 2000 (Law on funding for studies).

      (2)  Council Regulation of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ L 257, p. 2).


title: Action brought on 7 March 1997 by Sofivo and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-61/97)

text:
No C 166/ 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      31 . 5 . 97
Action brought on 28 February 1997 by Giorgio Lebedef                established at Périgueux ( France ), Serval, established at
   against the Commission of the European Communities                Sainte Eanne ( France ), Besnier Industrie, established at
                        ( Case T-42/97)                              Bourgbarre ( France ), Sovida, established at Chateaubriand
                                                                     ( France ), Sica Ouest Elevage, established at Ploudaniel
                          ( 97/C 166/31 )
                                                                     ( France ), Guinde, established at Montauban de Bretagne
                 (Language of the case: French)                      ( France ), Tarbouriech, established at Villeneuve sur Lot
                                                                     ( France ), Mamellor, established at Charnay les Macon
An action against the Commission of the European                     ( France ), Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau
Communities was brought before the Court of First                    (France ), Collet et Compagnie, established at
Instance of the European Communities on 28 February                  Chateaubourg (France ), Kermene SA, established at Saint
1997 by Giorgio Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg                   Jacut du Mene (France ), and Vals, established at
(Luxembourg ), represented by Gilles Bounéou, of the                 Champagne (France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                       the Rouen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Luxembourg at his Chambers, 15 Avenue du Bois.                       at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
— principally, annul the implied decision rejecting Mr               — annul Commission Regulation No 18/97 adopted on
     Lebedef's request for secondment on union duties,                      8 January 1997,
— alternatively, and so far as is necessary:
                                                                     — order the Commission to pay the costs.
     — declare the procedure known as 'secondment on
         union duties' unlawful,
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     — annul the Commission's decision not to put an end
         to all secondments on union duties already granted          The applicants, French companies producing veal for
         in the past,                                                human consumption, who are already contesting, before
     — order the Commission to pay all the costs .                   the Court of First Instance, Council Regulation No 2222/
                                                                     96 H and Commission Regulation No 2311 /96 ( 2 ), are
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  applying in the present case for annulment of Commission
                                                                     Regulation ( EEC) No 18/97 of 8 January 1997 amending
The applicant, a member of the union 'Action & Defense               Regulation (EEC ) No 3886/92 laying down detailed rules
— Luxembourg', considers that the Commission's refusal,              for the application of premium schemes in the beef and
first, to allow him secondment on union duties in his                veal sector ( 3 ), inasmuch as it increases the veal carcase
capacity as representative of the abovementioned union               reference weight for Germany from 103 kilograms to 112
and, second, to take a decision concerning the lawfulness            kilograms.
and validity of secondment on union duties allowed in the
past constitutes infringement of Articles 24a, 25 , 37, 38           The applicants also plead unequal treatment and anti
and 39 of the Staff Regulations and the framework                    competitive discrimination. They maintain that the
agreement governing the relations between the institution            increase in the German carcase reference weight to a
and the trade unions and staff associations and                      weight higher than that in respect of France, which has
Convention No 151 of the International Labour                        been fixed without leaving the competent French
Organization concerning employment relationships in                  authorities any discretion whatever, increases the
public service, which entered into force on 25 February              distortion of competition already criticized in the previous
1981 .                                                               cases, thereby directly benefiting German operators.
                                                                     H Cases T-14/97 and T-15/97 ( OJ No C 94 , 22 . 3 . 1997 ).
                                                                     ( 2 ) Case T-20/97 ( OJ No C 94, 22 . 3 . 1997 ).
                                                                     H OJ No L 5 , 9 . 1 . 1997, p . 17.
Action brought on 7 March 1997 by Sofivo and Others
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-61/97)
                          ( 97/C 166/32 )
                                                                     Action brought on 10 March 1997 by Société Générale
                 (Language of the case: French)                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-62/97)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                ( 97/C 166/33 )
Instance of the European Communities on 7 March 1997
by Sofivo, established at Conde sur Vire ( France ), Sofivo                            (Language of the case: French)
Production, established at Brece ( France ), Sovinor,
established at Conde sur Vire (France ), Denkavit France,            An action against the Commission of the European
established at Montreuil-Bellay ( France ), Sobeval Viande,          Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-397/99: Action brought on 13 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
18.12.1999            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 366/21
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du                  Action brought on 13 October 1999 by the Commission
Travail, Tournai (Section de Mouscron) by judgment of                  of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
that court of 5 October 1999 in the case of Institut                                                   lic
national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépen-
dants against Claude Hervein and Hervillier SA and
Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs                                      (Case C-397/99)
  indépendants against Guy Lorthiois and Comtexbel SA
                                                                                (1999/C 366/35)
              (Case C-393/99 and case C-394/99)
                                                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                         (1999/C 366/34)                               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       13 October 1999 by the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                       munities, represented by Dimitris Triantafillos and Barry
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Doherty, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Travail, Tournai (Section de Mouscron) (Labour Court, Tournai,         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Mouscron section) of 5 October 1999, received at the Court
Registry on 13 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of                                                                The Commission claims that the Court should:
— Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs            — declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
    indépendants against Claude Hervein and Hervillier SA and              down all the measures necessary in order to comply with
                                                                           Article 2(2) of Directive 96/2/EC (1) with regard to mobile
                                                                           and personal communications, in conjunction with the
— Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs                second and third paragraphs of Article 3a of Directive
    indépendants against Guy Lorthiois and Comtexbel SA                    90/388/EEC on competition in the markets for telecom-
                                                                           munications services, as amended by Directive 96/2/EC,
on the following questions.                                                the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                           under the Treaty and those directives;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
1. Is Article 14c(l)b of Council Regulation No 1408/71 of
    14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
    to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to               Pleas in law and main arguments
    members of their families moving within the Community,
    as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
    No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (1) and Annex VII to Regu-               The Member States are required by the binding character of
    lation No 1408/71, to be declared invalid in the light of          the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
    Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty inasmuch as it provides           paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
    that persons who pursue an activity as employees in one            adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
    Member State and an activity as self-employed persons in           law before the expiry of the period laid down for that purpose
    another Member State are subject to the legislation of both        and to communicate those measures immediately to the
    those Member States?                                               Commission.
2. Can that invalidity be relied on to call into question              Up until now the Hellenic Republic has not adopted the
    membership and contributions due under the provision               measures necessary in order to implement fully Article 2(2) of
    found to be invalid for periods which predate delivery of          Directive 96/2/EC and the second and third paragraphs of
    the judgment finding it to be invalid, except (if the answer       Article 3a of Directive 90/388/EEC, as amended by Directive
    is no) as regards workers or persons entitled under them           96/2/EC, which had to be implemented no later than 15 Febru-
    who have already brought legal proceedings or made an              ary 1996; it has thereby failed to fulfil its obligations under the
    equivalent claim under national law before that date?              Treaty and those directives.
(1) OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6.                                               (1) OJ No L 20 of 26.1.1996, p. 59.


title: Case C-587/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Vogtländische Straßen-, Tief- und Rohrleitungsbau GmbH Rodewisch (VSTR) v Finanzamt Plauen (Taxation — Value-added tax — Supply of goods — Taxation of chain transactions — Refusal to exempt on grounds of failure to produce the VAT identification number of the person acquiring goods)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Vogtländische Straßen-, Tief- und Rohrleitungsbau GmbH Rodewisch (VSTR) v Finanzamt Plauen
   (Case C-587/10) (1)

   (Taxation - Value-added tax - Supply of goods - Taxation of chain transactions - Refusal to exempt on grounds of failure to produce the VAT identification number of the person acquiring goods)
   2012/C 366/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vogtländische Straßen-, Tief- und Rohrleitungsbau GmbH Rodewisch (VSTR)

      Defendant: Finanzamt Plauen

      Intervener in support of the defendant(s): Bundesministerium der Finanzen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Supply of goods — Taxation of chain transactions — Purchase of goods by a company established in a Member State from another company, established in a third State and which is not registered for VAT purposes, which obtains its supplies from a company established in another Member State, the goods being dispatched directly by the supplier to the acquiring company — Situation where the supplier submits the acquirer’s VAT identification number

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 98/80/EC of 12 October 1998, should be interpreted as not precluding the tax authority of a Member State from making the exemption from VAT of an intra-Community supply subject to the provision by the supplier of the VAT identification number of the person acquiring the goods, with the proviso that the grant of that exemption should not be refused on the sole ground that that requirement was not fulfilled where the supplier, acting in good faith and having taken all the measures which can reasonably be required of him, is unable to provide that identification number but provides other information which is such as to demonstrate sufficiently that the person acquiring the goods is a taxable person acting as such in the transaction at issue.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case F-96/10: Action brought on 5 October 2010 — Andrecs and Others v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/63

         Action brought on 5 October 2010 — Andrecs and Others v Commission
   (Case F-96/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/123
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Stefan Robert Andrecs (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision adjusting the applicants’ remuneration, pensions and other allowances with effect from 1 July 2009, as set out in their salary slips, within the framework of the annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other servants pursuant to Council Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1296/2009 of 23 December 2009.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision by which the appointing authority fixed the new amount of the applicants’ remuneration, pensions and other allowances under the Staff Regulations, as set out in particular in the applicants’ salary slips R6/2009 and 01/2010, and annul the decision by which, on 24 June 2010, the appointing authority rejected the applicants’ complaint of 29 March 2010 in so far as those decisions deny the applicants an increase in their remuneration, pensions and allowances under the Staff Regulations equivalent to 3.70 % of the original amount, and dismiss their application for interest to be awarded to them on the amounts still owed to them at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points, from the date on which the applicants became entitled to the sums at issue until full payment;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-92/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by De Arbeidsrechtbank van het Arrondissement Tongeren by order of that Court of 11 March 2002 in the case of Nina Kristiansen against Rĳksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening

text:
C 118/18               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.5.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsger-              The Commission claims that the Court should:
icht Sigmaringen by order of that Court of 10 December
2001 in the case of Ms Erika Steinicke against Bundesan-               —     declare that, by failing to adopt and to communicate
                          stalt für Arbeit                                   to the Commission within the time-limit laid down
                                                                             (16 September 1999) the plans, outlines and summaries
                                                                             required under Articles 11 and 4(1) of Council Directive
                          (Case C-77/02)                                     96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on the disposal of
                                                                             polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated ter-
                                                                             phenyls (PCB/PCT), the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                         (2002/C 118/28)                                     fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                       —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                Pleas in law and main arguments
Sigmaringen (Administrative Court, Sigmaringen) of
10 December 2001, received at the Court Registry on 7 March
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ms Erika Steinicke       In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit on the following question:            directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon
                                                                       each Member State to which they are addressed.
Do Articles 141 of the EC Treaty, Directives 75/117/EEC (1),
76/207/EEC (2) and/or Directive 97/81/EC (3) preclude the rule         Under the first paragraph of Article 10 EC, Member States are
in Paragraph 72(b)(1)(1)(2) of the Bundesbeamtengesetz (Law            to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular,
on public servants), in the 3 March 1999 version that was in           to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty
force until 30 June 2000, to the effect that part-time status on       or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the
grounds of old age may be accorded only to public servants             Community.
who have worked full-time for a total of at least three of the
five years preceding their conversion to such part-time status,
if significantly more women than men work part-time, and               It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
are consequently excluded under that provision from being              measures to comply with the abovementioned directive.
accorded part-time status on grounds of old age?
                                                                       The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                                                       has not adopted the appropriate measures for the full incorpor-
(1) OJ L 45, p. 19.                                                    ation of the directive at issue into Greek law.
(2) OJ L 39, p. 40.
(3) OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9.
                                                                       (1) OJ L 243, 24.9.1996, p. 31.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by De Arbeidsrecht-
                                                                       bank van het Arrondissement Tongeren by order of that
Action brought on 12 March 2002 by the Commission of                   Court of 11 March 2002 in the case of Nina Kristiansen
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                         against Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening
                                                                                (Case C-92/02)
                          (Case C-83/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 118/30)
                         (2002/C 118/29)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of De Arbeidsrechtbank
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             van het Arrondissement Tongeren (Tongeren District Labour
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 March           Court) of 11 March 2002, received at the Court Registry on
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                    15 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Nina
represented by Hans Stovlbaek and Minas Konstantinidis, Legal          Kristiansen against Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening on
Advisers.                                                              the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 18.5.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/19
1.    In respect of temporary officials of the EEC who, after the       The applicant claims that the Court should:
      end of their period of service with the EEC reside in
      Belgium and in respect of whom no contributions were
      deducted in favour of the social security system and who          —     declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit
      are entitled to unemployment benefits paid by the EEC,                  prescribed all measures necessary for the recovery from
      do the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) preclude                 the recipients of aid granted unlawfully which is incom-
      national legislation from being fully applied to them,                  patible with the common market pursuant to Com-
      including the national rule against the overlapping of                  mission Decision 2000/128/EC (1) of 11 May 1999
      benefits under which, in accordance with the conditions                 concerning aid granted by Italy to promote employment
      governing the award of unemployment benefit the                         (notified on 4 June 1999 under document number
      employee must be without work and without salary, the                   C(1999) 1364), and therefore by not notifying the
      latter terms being deemed to include in particular:                     Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has
      remuneration in respect of termination of employment                    failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of
      or any compensation payable to the employee in respect                  that decision and under the EC Treaty;
      of termination of an employment relationship, with the
      exception of compensation for non-material damage?                —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
2.    Does it run counter to Regulation of the Council
      No 1612/68 (2) (Article 7(4) of Title II) which provides
      that uniformity in social-security matters must be pursued
      and that there may be no discrimination that (in the              Pleas in law and main arguments
      applicant’s view) there is inequality in the social-security
      status of post-doctoral assistants within the EEA, that in
      various Member States of the EEA a post-doctoral assist-          The Commission decision requires Italy to adopt ‘all necessary
      ant is deemed to carry on an occupational activity, albeit        measures to recover from the recipients the aid which does
      not subject to social security, and in Belgium a post-            not satisfy the conditions of Articles 1 and 2 and has already
      doctoral assistant (in the applicant’s view unjustly) is          been unlawfully paid.’ It must also notify the Commission,
      deemed to be a trainee (stagiaire) and a post-doctoral            within two months of the date of notification of that decision,
      fellow must arrange for his own social-security cover             ‘of the measures it has taken to comply herewith.’
      under the Belgian national system although that is not
      possible on a voluntary basis (at any rate in regard to
      unemployment assurance)?
                                                                        It must be concluded that upon the expiry of that time-limit
                                                                        the Italian Republic had not yet informed the Commission of
                                                                        the measures taken to recover the aid unlawfully paid.
(1) OJ 1971, L 149, p. 2.
(2) OJ 1968, L 257, p. 2.
                                                                        The only defence a Member State may plead to an action for
                                                                        failure to comply with a decision imposing an obligation to
                                                                        recover aid is that implementation is absolutely impossible.
                                                                        That condition is not satisfied so long as the defendant
                                                                        government confines itself to informing the Commission of
                                                                        legal, political or practical obstacles to the implementation of
                                                                        the decision without taking any steps to ensure that the
                                                                        undertakings concerned pay back the aid, and without suggest-
                                                                        ing alternative means of implementing the decision so as to
Action brought on 15 March 2002 by the Commission of                    overcome those obstacles.
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                        The Italian authorities have never claimed that implementation
                          (Case C-99/02)                                was absolutely impossible, nor have they ever officially
                                                                        requested an extension of time for the recovery or a suspension
                                                                        of execution of the decision, and nor have they suggested
                         (2002/C 118/31)                                alternative ways of applying the decision which would have
                                                                        enabled them to overcome the obstacles they faced.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 42 of 15.2.2000, p. 1.
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 March
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Vittorio Di Bucci, acting as Agent.


title: Case C-267/07: Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/18

         Action brought on 5 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-267/07)
   (2007/C 170/32)
   Language of the case: Slovene
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws and other provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/50/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (OJ 2004 L 164, p. 114), or at any event by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission, the Republic of Slovenia has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Slovenia to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition into domestic law of Directive 2004/50/EC expired on 29 April 2006.

      (1)  SL.ES Chapter 13 Volume 34 P. 838.


title: Case C-346/10: Order of the President of the Court of 4 August 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Greece

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/14

         Order of the President of the Court of 4 August 2011 — European Commission v Republic of Greece
   (Case C-346/10) (1)

   2011/C 340/24
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Joined Cases C-187/05 to C-190/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos — Greece) — G. Agorastoudis v Goodyear Hellas AVEE (Collective redundancies — Directive 75/129/EEC — Article 1(2)(d) — Termination of an establishment's activities as a result of a judicial decision — Termination of an establishment's activities of the employer's own volition)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos — Greece) — G. Agorastoudis v Goodyear Hellas AVEE
   (Joined Cases C-187/05 to C-190/05) (1)

   (Collective redundancies - Directive 75/129/EEC - Article 1(2)(d) - Termination of an establishment's activities as a result of a judicial decision - Termination of an establishment's activities of the employer's own volition)
   (2006/C 326/20)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Arios Pagos (Greece)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Georgios Agorastoudis and Others (C-187/05), Ioannis Panou and Others (C-188/05), Kostantinos Kotsampougioukis and Others (C-189/05), Georgios Akritopoulos and Others (C-190/05)

      Defendant: Goodyear Hellas AVEE

      Intervening parties: Geniki Sinomospondia Ergaton Elladas (GSEE), Ergatoipalliliko Kentro Thessalonikis (C-187/05 and C-189/05)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arios Pagos — Interpretation of Article 1(2) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC of 17 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ 1975 L 48, p. 29) — Inapplicability of the directive to workers affected by the termination of an establishment's activities where that is the result of a judicial decision — Meaning
   Operative part of the judgment
   Council Directive 75/129/EEC of 17 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies must be interpreted as being applicable in the case of collective redundancies that result from the definitive termination of the operation of an undertaking or establishment which has been decided on by the employer of his own accord without a prior judicial decision, and the exception laid down in Article 1(2)(d) of that directive cannot preclude its application.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 09.07.2005.


title: Assignment of the new Judge to Chambers

text:
               18.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/21

         Assignment of the new Judge to Chambers
   (2006/C 42/07)
   At its meeting on 17 January 2006, the Court of Justice of the European Communities decided to assign Mr Bay Larsen to the Second and Fifth Chambers.
   Consequently, the composition of the Second and Fifth Chambers is as set out below.
   Second Chamber
   C.W.A. Timmermans, President of Chamber
   J. Makarczyk, R. Schintgen, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris, G. Arestis, J. Klučka and L.Bay Larsen, Judges
   Fifth Chamber
   J. Makarczyk, President of Chamber
   R. Schintgen, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris, G. Arestis, J. Klučka and L.Bay Larsen, Judges


title: Case T-721/14: Order of the General Court of 27 October 2015 — Belgium v Commission (Action for annulment — Online gambling services — Protection of consumers and players and prevention of minors from gambling online — Commission Recommendation — Act not subject to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/25

         Order of the General Court of 27 October 2015 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-721/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Online gambling services - Protection of consumers and players and prevention of minors from gambling online - Commission Recommendation - Act not subject to review - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 429/32)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: L. Van den Broeck and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and P. Vlaemminck and B. Van Vooren, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Wilman, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Recommendation 2014/478/EU of 14 July 2014 on principles for the protection of consumers and players of online gambling services and for the prevention of minors from gambling online (OJ 2014 L 214, p. 38).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the Hellenic Republic and the Portuguese Republic.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Belgium shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               4.

               The Kingdom of Belgium, the Hellenic Republic, the Portuguese Republic and the European Commission shall each bear their own costs of the applications for leave to intervene.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case C-4/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 6 January 2014 — Christophe Bohez v Ingrid Wiertz

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/12

      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 6 January 2014 — Christophe Bohez v Ingrid Wiertz
      (Case C-4/14)
      (2014/C 71/21)
      Language of the case: Finnish

         Referring court

      Korkein oikeus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Christophe Bohez

         Defendant: Ingrid Wiertz

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Is Article 1(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that cases concerning the enforcement of a penalty payment (astreinte) imposed to ensure compliance with the principal obligation in a case concerning child custody or rights of access are outside the scope of the regulation?

                  2.

                  If the cases set out in the preceding paragraph fall within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, is Article 49 of the Brussels I Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that a periodic penalty payment which is enforceable as such in the amount stated in the State in which judgment was given, but whose final amount may be changed on the application or arguments of the party subject to the penalty payment, is enforceable in a Member State only if its amount has been separately determined in the State in which judgment was given?

                  3.

                  If cases such as those identified above are outside the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, is Article 47(1) of the Brussels IIa Regulation (2) to be interpreted as meaning that sanctions and protective measures concerning child custody and rights of access fall within the enforcement procedure referred to in that provision which is governed by the legislation of the Member State of enforcement, or can they form part of the judgment concerning child custody and rights of access which is enforceable in another Member State under the Brussels IIa Regulation?

                  4.

                  When enforcement of a penalty payment is sought in another Member State, is it a requirement that the amount of the penalty payment to be enforced has been finally determined separately in the Member State in which judgment was given, even if the Brussels I Regulation does not apply in the enforcement proceedings?

                  5.

                  If a periodic penalty payment (astreinte) imposed as a means to ensure compliance with rights of access is enforceable in another Member State without the amount of the penalty payment to be enforced having separately been finally determined:

                              (a)

                              does the enforcement of the penalty payment nevertheless require a review of whether the failure to comply with rights of access was based on obstacles which it was essential to take into consideration on account of the rights of children, and

                              (b)

                              which court has jurisdiction to examine such factors, more specifically,

                                          (i)

                                          is the jurisdiction of the court of the State of enforcement always limited solely to an examination of whether the alleged failure to comply with rights of access has occurred for reasons which are expressly set out in the judgment in the main proceedings, or

                                          (ii)

                                          does it follow from the protection of the rights of children in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that the court of the State of enforcement has a more extensive right or obligation to examine whether the failure to comply with rights of access was based on grounds which it was essential to take into consideration in order to safeguard the rights of children?

         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

         (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).


title: Case T-386/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — FIH Holding and FIH Erhvervsbank v Commission (State aid — Banking sector — Aid granted to Danish bank FIH in the form of a transfer of its impaired assets to a new subsidiary and the subsequent purchase thereof by the Danish Financial Stability Company — State aid for banks during the crisis — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market — Definition of aid — Private investor test — Private creditor test — Calculation of the amount of the aid — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — FIH Holding and FIH Erhvervsbank v Commission
   (Case T-386/14) (1)

   ((State aid - Banking sector - Aid granted to Danish bank FIH in the form of a transfer of its impaired assets to a new subsidiary and the subsequent purchase thereof by the Danish Financial Stability Company - State aid for banks during the crisis - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Definition of aid - Private investor test - Private creditor test - Calculation of the amount of the aid - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2016/C 402/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: FIH Holding A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark), FIH Erhvervsbank A/S (Copenhagen) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and P.-J. Loewenthal, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action on the basis of Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC (OJ 2014 L 357, p. 89).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2014/884/EU of 11 March 2014 on State aid SA.34445 (12/C) implemented by Denmark for the transfer of property-related assets from FIH to the FSC.

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


23.1.1999             EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 20/29
      Removal from the register of Case C-296/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-377/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 20/48)                                                   (1999/C 20/51)
By order of 7 October 1998, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal          By order of 9 October 1998, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-296/97 (Reference for a              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für           from the register of Case C-377/97: Commission of the
das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen): Ulrich Gloger v. Bergamt          European Communities v. Greek Republic.
Kamen, intervener: Vertreter des Öffentlichen Interesses
beim Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-              (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
Westfalen (Representative of the Public Interest before the
Higher Administrative Court for the Land North
Rhine-Westphalia).
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
                                                                 Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-239/96 and
                                                                                C-240/96 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/52)
      Removal from the register of Case C-369/97 ( )1
                       (1999/C 20/49)                            By order of 14 October 1998, the President of the Court
                                                                 of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 8 October 1998, the President of the Court of        removal from the register of Joined Cases C-239/96 and
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal          C-240/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
from the register of Case C-369/97 (Reference for a              Ireland, interveners: Federal Republic of Germany,
preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Schutz-       Kingdom of Denmark and Council of the European Union
verband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v. F. W. Woolworth           v. Commission of the European Communities, intervener:
Co Gesellschaft mbH.                                             European Parliament.
(1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-382/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 20/50)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-370/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/53)
By order of 8 October 1998, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-382/97 (Reference for a              By order of 20 October 1998, the President of the Court
preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof):             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Gerhard Köbler v. Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, For-          removal from the register of Case C-370/97 (Reference for
schung und Kunst.                                                a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof):
                                                                 Poloco SA v. Jürgen Denz.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.


title: Case T-494/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda Holding (watt)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/60

         Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Sales & Solutions v OHIM — Inceda Holding (watt)
   (Case T-494/13)
   2013/C 344/111
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sales & Solutions (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Inceda Holding (Cologne, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 July 2013 in appeal proceedings R 1192/2012-4;

               —

               Order the intervener to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark ‘watt’ for services in Classes 35, 39 and 42 — Community trade mark No 3 820 313

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Inceda Holding

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the mark concerned was declared invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 March 2009 — Telecom Italia Media v Commission Case T-96/07 (State aid — Subsidies for the purchase of digital decoders — Telecommunications — Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market — Decision of the Member State, adopted during the proceedings, not to recover the aid from the undertaking which brought the action for annulment against the Commission decision — No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/35

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 March 2009 — Telecom Italia Media v Commission
   Case T-96/07 (1)

   (State aid - Subsidies for the purchase of digital decoders - Telecommunications - Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market - Decision of the Member State, adopted during the proceedings, not to recover the aid from the undertaking which brought the action for annulment against the Commission decision - No longer any legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)
   2009/C 113/72
   Language of the case: Italian.

      Parties

      Applicant: Telecom Italia Media (TI Media) SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. Bassam and S. Venturini, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini, G. Conte and B. Martenczuk, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Sky Italia Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: F. González Díaz and D. Gerard, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action for the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/374/EC of 24 January 2007 on State aid C 52/2005 (ex NN 88/2005, ex CP 101/2004) implemented by the Italian Republic for the subsidised purchase of digital decoders (OJ 2007 L 147, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 29.5.2007


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 17 June 1997 in Case C-105/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Codiesel - Sociedade de Apoio Técnico à Indústria Ldª v. Conselho Técnico Aduaneiro; also represented: Ministério Público (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Electrical apparatus constituting an uninterruptible power supply - Classification in the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff)

text:
No C 252/6            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16 . 8 . 97
     social welfare system by concluding contracts which              (EEC) No 2658/87, must be interpreted as including
     entitle them to be reimbursed by the public authorities          grated cheese which, when imported, is, by reason of the
     for the costs of providing social welfare services of a          method of packaging and preservation used, in an
     health-care nature.                                              agglomerated form and, after unpacking and exposure to
                                                                      the surrounding air, breaks down into irregular granules.
O OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      H OJ No C 189, 22 . 7. 1995 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       ( Fourth Chamber)                                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 17 June 1997                                                     (First Chamber)
in Case C-164/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made                                    of 17 June 1997
by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ): Fábrica de                  in Case C-105/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling made
Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ld® v. Alfândega de Lisboa                      by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Codiesel —
       (Tribunal Técnico Aduaneiro de 23. Instância) (')              Sociedade de Apoio Técnico à Indústria Ld? v. Conselho
(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification —                      Técnico Aduaneiro; also represented: Ministério
                          Grated cheese)                                                         Público H
                          ( 97/C 252/ 10 )                            (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Electrical
                                                                      apparatus constituting an 'uninterruptible power supply'
                                                                      — Classification in the nomenclature of the Common
               (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                             Customs Tariff)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/ 11 )
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case C- 164/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
( Supreme Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling                       published in the European Court Reports)
in the proceedings pending before that court between
Fabrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ld? and Alfandega de
Lisboa ( Tribunal Tecnico Aduaneiro de 2*. Instancia )                In Case C-105/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
( Lisbon Customs Authority ( Specialized Customs Court of             of the EC Treaty by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
Second Instance )) — on the interpretation of subheadings             ( Supreme Administrative Court) for a preliminary ruling
0406 20 90 and 0406 90 11 of Council Regulation ( EEC )               in the proceedings pending before that court between
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical              Codiesel — Sociedade de Apoio Tecnico a Industria Ld?
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff ( OJ No                 and Conselho Tecnico Aduaneiro ( Customs Examination
L 256 , 7. 9 . 1987, p. 1 ), as amended by Commission                 Board ); also represented: Ministerio Publico — on the
Regulation ( EEC ) No 3174/88 of 21 September 1988                    interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC ) No 950/68 of
amending Annex I to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/87 ( OJ                28 June 1968 on the Common Customs Tariff ( OJ,
No L 298 , 31 . 10 . 1988 , p. 1 ) and by Commission                  English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 275 ), as amended by
Regulation ( EEC ) No 316/91 of 7 February 1991                       Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3331 /85 of 5 December
concerning the classification of certain goods in the                  1985 ( OJ No L 331 , 9 . 12 . 1985 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( First
combined nomenclature ( OJ No L 37, 9 . 2 . 1991 , p. 25 )            Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevon, President of the
— the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: J. L.                    Chamber, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur) and P. Jann,
Murray, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and                Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas,                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 1997, the
Advocate-General : H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for             operative part of which is as follows:
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 June 1997, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                       Council Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 of 28 June 1968 on
                                                                       the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Council
Subheading 0406 20 90 of Council Regulation (EEC)                      Regulation (EEC) No 3331 /85 of 5 December 1985, must
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical               be interpreted as meaning that an electrical apparatus
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as                      which is an 'uninterruptible power supply ' consisting, on
amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3174/88                      the one hand, of a cabinet containing a rectifier/charger,
 of 21 September 1988 amending Annex I to Regulation                  an inverter and a static bypass switch and, on the other, of
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 8 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 252/7
a cabinet housing a sealed lead-acid accumulator battery                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
must be classified under tariff subheading 85. 01 . B. II as                                 ( Sixth Chamber)
'transformers, static converters, rectifiers and rectifying
apparatus '.                                                                                of 25 June 1997
                                                                      in Joined Cases C-304/94, C-330/94 , C-342/94 and
(' OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                       C-224/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                      Pretura Circondariale di Terni and di Pescara ): criminal
                                                                      proceedings against Euro Tombesi and Adino Tombesi,
                                                                      Roberto Santella, Giovanni Muzi and Others and Anselmo
                                                                                Savini ( 1 )
                                                                      (Waste — Definition — Council Directives 91/156/EEC
                                                                             and 91/689/EEC — Council Regulation (EEC)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             No 259/93)
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                                      ( 97/C 252/ 13 )
                         of 25 June 1997
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-285/94: Italian Republic v. Commission of the
                   European Communities (')
(Commission Regulation (EC) No 1840/94 of 27 July                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
1994 fixing the olive yields and oil yields for the                            published in the European Court Reports)
      marketing year 1993/94 — Action for annulment)
                           ( 97/C 252/ 12                             In Joined Cases C-304/94, C-330/94, C-342/94 and
                                                                      C-224/95 : references to the Court under Article 177 of the
                                                                      EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Terni ( C-304/
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      94,    C-330/94     and      C-342/94 )   and    the   Pretura
                                                                      Circondariale di Pescara ( C-224/95 ) ( Italy) for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending
                                                                      before those courts against Euro Tombesi and Adino
                                                                      Tombesi ( C-304/94 ), Roberto Santella ( C-330/94 ),
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Giovanni Muzi and Others ( C-342/94 ) and Anselmo
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Savini ( C-224/95 ) — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                      Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991 , amending
                                                                      Directive 75/442/EC on waste ( OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 ,
In Case C-285/94: Italian Republic ( Agent: Professor                 p. 32 ), of Council Directive 91 /689/EEC of 12 December
                                                                      1991 on hazardous waste ( OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 ,
Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri, Avvocato
dello Stato ) v. Commission of the European Communities               p. 20 ), and of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 of
(Agent: Eugenio de March, assisted by Alexandre                       1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of
Carnelutti ) — application for the annulment of                       shipments on waste within, into and out of the European
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1840/94 of 27 July 1994               Community ( OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 ) — the Court
fixing the olive yields and oil yields for the marketing year         ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
1993/94 ( OJ No L 193 , 28 . 7. 1994, p. 1 ) — the Court              of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President               ( Rapporteur ), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; L.
of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur),             Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; D.                  judgment on 25 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 June 1997, in which
it :                                                                  The concept of 'waste ' in Article 1 of Council Directive
                                                                       75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by
                                                                       Council Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991 , referred
                                                                      to in Article 1 (3) of Council Directive 91 /689/EEC of
 1 . dismisses the application;                                        12 December 1991 on hazardous waste and Article 2 (a)
                                                                      of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February
                                                                       1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste
                                                                      within, into and out of the European Community, is not
2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                     to be understood as excluding substances and objects
                                                                      which are capable of economic reutilization, even if the
(') OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                      materials in question may be the subject of a transaction
                                                                      or quoted on public or private commercial lists. In
                                                                      particular, a deactivation process intended merely to
                                                                      render waste harmless, landfill tipping in hollows or
                                                                       embankments and waste incineration constitute disposal


title: Case T-403/16: Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Vivatech (Immunostad)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/51

         Action brought on 28 July 2016 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO — Vivatech (Immunostad)
   (Case T-403/16)
   (2016/C 335/68)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J. Plate, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vivatech (Paris, France)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the mark at issue: the applicant

      Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Immunostad’ — EU trade mark No 9 552 225

      Proceedings before EUIPO: invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 April 2016 in Case R 863/2015–5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to bear the costs, including the costs of the appeal.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-113/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Choice of legal basis — Article 43(2) TFEU or Article 43(3) TFEU — Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Article 7 — Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013 — Article 2 — Measures on fixing prices — Reference thresholds — Intervention prices)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 September 2016 — Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-113/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Choice of legal basis - Article 43(2) TFEU or Article 43(3) TFEU - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 7 - Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013 - Article 2 - Measures on fixing prices - Reference thresholds - Intervention prices))
   (2016/C 402/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, A. Lippstreu and A. Wiedmann, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: M. Holt, C. Brodie and J. Kraehling, acting as Agents, and by A. Bates, Barrister), Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Škeřík, J. Vláčil and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L.G. Knudsen, R. Kaškina and U. Rösslein, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Maganza, J.-P. Hix and S. Barbagallo, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendants: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007;

               2.

               Annuls Article 2 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1370/2013 of 16 December 2013 determining measures on fixing certain aids and refunds related to the common organisation of the markets in agricultural products;

               3.

               Declares that the effects of Article 7 of Regulation No 1308/2013 and of Article 2 of Regulation No 1370/2013 are to be maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period of time which cannot exceed five months from the date of delivery of the present judgment, of a new regulation on the correct legal basis, namely Article 43(3) TFEU;

               4.

               Orders the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to pay the costs;

               5.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.