title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 May 2002 in Case C-43/01 P: Sandro Cognigni v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
13.7.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 169/13
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period       1.    The appeal is dismissed.
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament              2.    The parties to the appeal are to bear their own costs.
      and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
      of biocidal products on the market, Ireland has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under that directive;
                                                                            (1) OJ C 355 of 25.11.2000.
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                                                of 2 May 2002
                          of 13 March 2002                                  in Case C-43/01 P: Sandro Cognigni v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case C-344/00 P: Michel Hendrickx v European Centre                          (Appeal — Officials — Appeal manifestly unfounded)
for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/23)
(Appeal — Officials — Non-renewal of contract as a
member of the temporary staff — Rejection of application
for post — Admissibility — Competence — Legality of                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
                           vacancy notices)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                           (2002/C 169/22)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            In Case C-43/01 P: Sandro Cognigni, residing at Amandola
                                                                            (Italy), represented by W. Massucci — appeal against the order
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                    in the European Court Reports)                          (First Chamber) of 30 November 2000 in Case T-314/00
                                                                            Cognigni v Commission (not published in the European Court
                                                                            Reports), seeking to have that order set aside, the other party
                                                                            to the proceedings being the Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities (Agent: J. Currall, assisted by A. Dal Ferro) —
In Case C-344/00 P: Michel Hendrickx, an official of the                    the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr
Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels (Belgium),              (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and
represented by J.-N. Louis and V. Peere — appeal against the                A. La Pergola, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                     Registrar, has made an order on 2 May 2002, the operative
Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case T-87/                   part of which is as follows:
99 Hendrickx v Cedefop [2000] ECR-SC I-A-147 and II-679,
seeking to have that judgment partially set aside, the other
party to the proceedings being the European Centre for the                  1.    The appeal is dismissed.
Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop), represented
by B. Wägenbaur — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                   2.    Mr Cognigni is to pay the costs.
Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rapporteur)
and S. von Bahr, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, C.W.A. Timm-                (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
ermans and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 13 March 2002, the
operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case T-573/11: Action brought on 4 November 2011 — JAS v Commission

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/55

      Action brought on 4 November 2011 — JAS v Commission
      (Case T-573/11)
      (2012/C 25/107)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: JAS Jet Air Service France (JAS) (France) (represented by: T. Gallois, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the Commission’s decision of 5 August 2011 in Case REM 01/2008 in which the Commission:

                              —

                              decided that there was no special situation; and

                              —

                              refused the application for remission of import duties in the amount of EUR 1 001 778,20 submitted by JAS JET AIR SERVICE on 24 January 2008;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                  1.

                  First plea in law: infringement of the obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based, in so far as the Commission gave hypothetical reasons.

                  2.

                  Second plea in law: infringement of the rights of the defence in that the Commission did not require the national administration to produce originals or copies of the customs declarations to which the application for remission related, although those documents would prove that a physical check had taken place.

                  3.

                  Third plea in law: irregular examination of the case in that the burden of proof was reversed, the Commission having concluded, on the basis of the national authorities’ assertion that the customs declarations in question had disappeared, that there was no proof that the customs administration had physically checked the goods. The applicant submits that the Commission cannot make good that failure on the part of the national authorities, to the detriment of the applicant.

                  4.

                  Fourth plea in law: infringement of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code (1) in so far as the Commission limited the scope of the definition of ‘special situation’.

                  5.

                  Fifth plea in law: errors of law and manifest errors of assessment in so far as the Commission found that there was no ‘special situation’ for the purposes of Article 239 of the Customs Code, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant was faced with the same situation as another forwarding agent, a Dutch company, whose situation had been deemed by the Commission to constitute a ‘special situation’.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Case C-60/15 P: Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2014 in Case T-476/12 Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH v European Commission

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/35

         Appeal brought on 11 February 2015 by Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 11 December 2014 in Case T-476/12 Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH v European Commission

   (Case C-60/15 P)
   (2015/C 138/48)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and P.-A. Schütter, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 in Case T-476/12;

               —

               uphold the action it brought at first instance seeking annulment of the Commission’s decision of 17 January 2013 (GestDem No 3273/2012).

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the General Court failed to observe the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 (1) concerning the grounds for refusing to grant free access to environmental information. Contrary to Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 the General Court did not interpret the grounds for refusal laid down in Article 4(3) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 strictly (2). In addition, the General Court did not appropriately take into account the public interest put forth in gaining access to environmental information. Nor is the judgment under appeal in conformity with the Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information, which has been ratified by the European Union.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).

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


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 31, 5.2.2005

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/28

         (2005/C 45/61)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 31, 5.2.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 19, 22.1.2005

      OJ C 6, 8.1.2005

      OJ C 314, 18.12.2004

      OJ C 300, 4.12.2004

      OJ C 273, 6.11.2004

      OJ C 262, 23.10.2004

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case F-84/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 June 2011 — Emmanuel Larue and Olivier Seigneur v European Central Bank (Staff case — Staff of the ECB — Pay — General adjustment to salaries — Disregard of the method of calculation)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/39

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 June 2011 — Emmanuel Larue and Olivier Seigneur v European Central Bank
   (Case F-84/09) (1)

   (Staff case - Staff of the ECB - Pay - General adjustment to salaries - Disregard of the method of calculation)
   2011/C 232/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Emmanuel Larue and Olivier Seigneur (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by G. Nuvoli and N. Urban, Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of pay-slips for January 2009.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls Mr Larue and Mr Seigneur’s pay-slips for the month of January 2009;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Central Bank to bear all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312 of 19.12.09, p. 44.


title: Case C-204/16 P: Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-141/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union

text:
               27.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/5

         Appeal brought on 11 April 2016 by SolarWorld AG against the order of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 1 February 2016 in Case T-141/14: SolarWorld AG and Others v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-204/16 P)
   (2016/C 232/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: SolarWorld AG (represented by: L. Ruessmann, Avocat, J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Brandoni solare SpA, Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA, Council of the European Union, European Commission, China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the Appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               set aside the General Court's Order in Case T-141/14;

               —

               rule on the substance and annul Article 3 of Regulation 1238/2013, or refer the case back to the General Court for a decision on the substance of the Application for annulment; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the Appellant's costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court committed an error in law in finding that Article 3 of Regulation 1238/2013 (1) is not severable from the remainder of that regulation. Changing the form of measures does not change the scope of the Regulation imposing them. The scope of antidumping measures is all imports from producers found to have engaged in injurious dumping, and their objective, regardless of the form, is to be adequate to remove the injury suffered by the EU producers. This scope is not changed by the annulment of Article 3.
   The Contested Order violates the Appellant's right under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as it denies the EU industry a legal remedy in trade defence cases against definitive measures which fail to respect the requirements of the Basic Regulation. In addition, the Contested Order violates the Appellant's right under Article 20 of the of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union by putting exporting producers in a better position than the EU industry, as the jurisprudence recognises their right of appeal.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China

      OJ L 325, p. 1


title: Case C-93/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2010 — Finanzamt Essen-NordOst v GFKL Financial Services AG

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 17 February 2010 — Finanzamt Essen-NordOst v GFKL Financial Services AG
   (Case C-93/10)
   2010/C 134/27
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Finanzamt Essen-NordOst

      Respondent: GFKL Financial Services AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               For the interpretation of Article 2(1) and Article 4 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC):
               Does the sale (purchase) of defaulted debts constitute, on account of the assumption of responsibility for debt recovery and the risk of loss, a service for consideration and an economic activity on the part of the purchaser of the debts even if the purchase price

                           —

                           is not based on the face value of the debts, with a flat-rate reduction agreed for the assumption of responsibility for debt recovery and the risk of loss, but

                           —

                           is set by reference to the risk of loss estimated for the debt concerned, with only secondary importance attached to the recovery of the debt compared to the reduction for the risk of loss?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, for the interpretation of Article 13B(d)(2) and (3) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC):

                           (a)

                           Is the assumption of the risk of loss by the purchaser of defaulted debts at a purchase price significantly lower than their face value exempt from tax, as being the provision of a different security or guarantee?

                           (b)

                           If the assumption of the risk is exempt from tax, is the recovery of the debts exempt from tax, as part of a single service or as an ancillary service, or taxable as a separate service?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative and no exempt service has been supplied, for the interpretation of Article 11A(a) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC):
               Is the consideration for the taxable service determined by the recovery costs presumed by the parties or by the actual recovery costs?


title: Case C-414/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny, Cracow (Republic of Poland), lodged on 10 September 2007 — MAGOORA Sp. z.o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/35

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny, Cracow (Republic of Poland), lodged on 10 September 2007 — MAGOORA Sp. z.o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie
   (Case C-414/07)
   (2007/C 269/59)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny, Cracow
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: MAGOORA Sp. z.o.o.

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth Directive (1) preclude the Republic of Poland from repealing completely, as of 1 May 2004, national provisions in force up to that date concerning restrictions on the deduction of input tax on purchases of fuel for vehicles used for a taxable activity and also introducing in their place restrictions on the deduction of input tax on purchases of fuel for vehicles used for a taxable activity but which are defined in national law on the basis of different criteria to those used prior to 1 May 2004, and from subsequently amending those criteria again with effect from 22 August 2005?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: does Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive preclude the Republic of Poland from amending the above criteria so as de facto to restrict the scope of deductions of input tax in comparison with the national provisions in force on 30 April 2004 or with the national provisions in force before the amendment made on 22 August 2005? If it should be found that this action by the Republic of Poland constitutes a breach of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive, would it be necessary to find that a taxable person would be entitled to make deductions but only in so far as the amendments to the national provisions went beyond the scope of the restrictions on deducting input tax provided for in the national provisions in force on 30 April 2004 and repealed on that same date?

               3.

               Does Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive preclude the Republic of Poland, invoking the possibility, provided for in that provision, for Member States to restrict the deduction of input tax attaching to expenditure which is not strictly business expenditure, such as that on luxuries, amusements or entertainment, from restricting the deduction of input tax in comparison with the position in law as it stood on 30 April 2004 so as to exclude the deduction of input tax on the purchase of fuel for passenger cars or other motor vehicles with a maximum authorised mass not exceeding 3,5 tonnes, with the exception of vehicles referred to in Article 86(4) of the Ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Polish Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004, in the version in force since 22 August 2005?

      (1)  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).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 11 March 2004 In Case C-240/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo): PARTIE 1 v PARTIE 2

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   11 March 2004
   In Case C-240/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo): PARTIE 1 v PARTIE 2 (1)

   (Postal Services - Directive 97/67/EC - Services reserved for the providers of the universal postal service - Definition of self-provision - Inclusion of money order services)
   (2004/C 94/12)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-240/02: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Asociación Profesional de Empresas de Reparto y Manipulado de Correspondencia (Asempre), Asociación Nacional de Empresas de Externalización y Gestión de Envíos y Pequeña Paquetería and Entidad Pública Empresarial Correos y Telégrafos, Administración General del Estado, on the interpretation of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 15 December 1997, on the common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans and S. von Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 7 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 15 December 1997, on the common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, read in the light of recital 21 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not permit self-provision to be subject to the following conditions:

                           —

                           the receiver must be the same person as the sender;

                           —

                           the services must not be provided to third parties in the course of commercial or business activity of the service provider;

                           —

                           the services must not be provided by the mailbag system or other similar methods; and

                           —

                           such operations must not disrupt the services reserved to the universal service provider.

               2.

               Money order services, which consist in making payments through the public postal network to natural or legal persons on behalf of and on the order of others, are not within the scope of Directive 97/67.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.


title: Case F-42/06: Action brought on  13 April 2006  — Sundholm v Commission

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/54

         Action brought on 13 April 2006 — Sundholm v Commission
   (Case F-42/06)
   (2006/C 131/99)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, avocats)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare illegal Article 12 of the Commission Decision of 3 March 2004 on the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations (GIP);

               —

               Annul the decision establishing the applicant's Career Development Review (CDR) for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay, at this stage of the proceedings, EUR 1 in respect of non-pecuniary loss;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her action, the applicant submits first of all that the amendments of the GIP infringe the principle of legal certainty and the Official's entitlement to reasonable career prospects, in that the rules for assessing the merits changed in the course of the assessment period.
   Next, the applicant alleges an infringement of the GIP and of the duty to state reasons. In particular, notwithstanding the amendment to the applicant's duties and the lack of precise and definitive objectives and assessment criteria, comments from her CDR 2003 were copied into her CDR 2004, without complying with the conditions laid down by the GIP for a carryover.
   Lastly, the applicant submits that the contested decision contains a manifest error of assessment and inconsistencies between the marks awarded and the comments.


title: Case T-501/10: Order of the General Court of 21 September 2012 — TI Media Broadcasting and TI Media v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Italian pay-TV market — Decision modifying the commitments attached to a decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the EEA agreement — Call for tenders for the award of digital terrestrial television frequencies in Italy — Action devoid of purpose — No need to adjudicate — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/26

         Order of the General Court of 21 September 2012 — TI Media Broadcasting and TI Media v Commission
   (Case T-501/10) (1)

   (Competition - Concentrations - Italian pay-TV market - Decision modifying the commitments attached to a decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the EEA agreement - Call for tenders for the award of digital terrestrial television frequencies in Italy - Action devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 355/56
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Telecom Italia Media Broadcasting Srl (TI Media Broadcasting) (Rome, Italy) and Telecom Italia Media SpA (TI Media) (Rome) (represented by: B. Caravita di Toritto, L. Sabelli, F. Pace and A. d’Urbano, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially B. Gencarelli and P. Manzini, and subsequently L. Malferrari and J. Bourke, acting as Agents)

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

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4976 final of 20 July 2010 modifying the commitments attached to a decision declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the EEA agreement (Case COMP/M.2876).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the first and fourth heads of claim.

               2.

               The remainder of the application is dismissed.

               3.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


C 219/12               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 14.9.2002
        Removal from the register of Case C-144/01 ( 1)              register of Case C-279/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
                        (2002/C 219/23)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.
By order of 4 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-144/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-365/01 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/27)
                                                                     By order of 5 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
        Removal from the register of Case  C-247/01 ( 1)             register of Case C-365/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Ireland.
                        (2002/C 219/24)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-247/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Kingdom of Sweden.
( 1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-391/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/28)
                                                                     By order of 27 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case  C-258/01 ( 1)             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-391/01: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                        (2002/C 219/25)
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
By order of 14 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-258/01: Commission of the European
Communities v Portuguese Republic.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-412/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/29)
                                                                     By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
        Removal from the register of Case C-279/01 ( 1)              of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-412/01: Commission of the European
                        (2002/C 219/26)                              Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
By order of 20 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the


title: Case T-213/02: Action brought on 12 July 2002 by SNF S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 233/28              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.9.2002
—     in so far as necessary, annul that decision inasmuch as          name ‘Champagne’ has been used in the production of wine in
      the Council and the Commission approved the other                the area for many years and is thus the industrial and
      articles of the Agreement between the European Com-              commercial property of the applicants.
      munity and the Swiss Confederation on Trade in Agricul-
      tural Products, as well as the Agreement on Mutual
      Recognition in Relation to Conformity Assessment                 Furthermore, a total ban on the use by the applicants of
      between the European Community and the Swiss Confed-             the name ‘Champagne’ does not observe the principle of
      eration, the Agreement between the European Com-                 proportionality. The applicants point out that the wine they
      munity and the Swiss Confederation on Certain Aspects            produce is a non-sparkling wine which does not compete
      of Government Procurement, the Agreement on Scientific           with French champagne. There is therefore no likelihood of
      and Technological Cooperation between the European               confusion. In addition, there are less restrictive ways in which
      Community and the European Atomic Energy Com-                    to achieve the same objective, such as by indicating the country
      munity, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of         of origin on the label.
      the other part, the Agreement between the European
      Community and the Swiss Confederation on the Carriage
      of Goods and Passengers by Rail and Road, the Agreement
      between the European Community and the Swiss Confed-
      eration on Air Transport, the Agreement on the Free
      Movement of Persons between the European Community
      and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss
      Confederation, of the other part;
                                                                       Action brought on 12 July 2002 by SNF S.A. against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
—     declare that the European Community, as represented by
      the Council and the European Commission, is liable and
      order the defendants to compensate in full the applicant                                 (Case T-213/02)
      wine growers for all damage arising from the ‘Champagne
      Clause’;
                                                                                (2002/C 233/51)
—     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.                             (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        European Communities on 12 July 2002 by SNF S.A.,
                                                                       represented by Koen Van Maldegem and Claudio Mereu at
                                                                       McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP in Brussels, Belgium
The applicants are, on the one hand, owners of vineyards in
the municipality of Champagne, in the canton of Vaud in                The applicant claims that the Court should:
Switzerland and, on the other, acting in defence of the interests
of those wine growers.                                                 —     order the partial annulment of the Twenty-Sixth Com-
                                                                             mission Directive 2002/34/EC of 15 April 2002 adapting
                                                                             to technical progress Annexes II, III and VII to Council
                                                                             Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws
                                                                             of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), so
By the contested decision, the Council and the Commission
                                                                             as to remove polyacrylamides from the measure;
approved seven bilateral agreements between the Community
and the Swiss Confederation; one of those agreements concerns
agricultural trade. One of the annexes to that agreement               —     order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in
includes a provision prohibiting use of the name ‘Champagne’                 these proceedings.
for wine originating in the canton of Vaud.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of their arguments, the applicants allege, first,
breach of general principles of law including right to their
identity, to property and to the freedom to pursue professional        The applicant seeks the partial annulment of the above-
activities. The word ‘Champagne’ is also protected in Swiss            mentioned Directive due to the fact that the Commission has
law, where it is an appellation communale d’origine contrôlée          placed restrictions on the use of the applicant’s products,
(registered municipal designation of origin). Moreover, the            polyacrylamides, as ingredients in cosmetic products. The
 ---pagebreak--- 28.9.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/29
applicant submits that in doing so, the Commission has                     Action brought on 17 July 2002 by Fieldturf Inc. against
disregarded several procedural rules set forth in Council                  the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
Directive 76/768/EEC (2), as last amended by Commission                                       (Trademarks and Designs)
Directive 2000/41/EC ( 3), which the contested Directive pur-
ports to implement.
                                                                                (Case T-216/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 233/52)
It alleges that the procedural safeguards set out in the
Cosmetics Directive and in the Commission Decision estab-
lishing the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and                                     (Language of the case: English)
Non Food Products intended for Consumers (4) have been
violated. By not adequately informing the applicant of the
ongoing deliberations and the status of the Committee’s
opinion on acrylamide, by disrespecting procedural safeguards
aimed at preserving the impartiality of the decision-making,               An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
by using scientific standards that are at odds with prevailing             Market (Trademarks and Designs) was brought before the
EU decisions, by manifestly misinterpreting the data submitted             Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
by the applicant and by not adequately allowing the applicant              17 July 2002 by Fieldturf Inc. Montreal (Canada), represented
to state its case and express its view on studies co-authored by           by Dr Patrick Baronikians at Schwarz Kurtze Schniewind
it, the Commission has violated the applicant’s rights of                  Kelwing Wicke in Munich, Germany
defence in a way which affects the validity of the contested
Directive. Furthermore, the defendant omitted to notify the
applicant of the Directive, so that the legislative process is
affected by a procedural deficiency which necessarily affects its          The applicant claims that the Court should:
validity.
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
                                                                                the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                                (Trademarks and Designs) of 15 May 2002 (Case R 462/
                                                                                2001-1) concerning the registration of the trademark
The applicant submits that the contested Directive improperly                    ‘LOOKS LIKE GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS... PLAYS LIKE
includes polyacrylamides in Annex III to the Cosmetics                           GRASS’ and direct that the claimed mark will be registered
Directive based on a calculation of cancer potency which is at                   for all the goods and service applied for;
odds with the more specific and prevailing review of acrylami-
de under the EU chemicals legislation. The contested Directive             —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
also infringes a series of well established principles of Com-                   Market (Trademarks and Designs) to pay the costs of the
munity law, e.g. the duty to state reasons, the principle                        applicant.
of proportionality, the principle of uniform application of
Community law and the principle of equal treatment. Finally,
the Commission did not consider all interests at stake and
ignored the recent scientific findings.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
( 1) OJ L 102, p. 19.                                                      The trade mark con-           The word mark ‘LOOKS LIKE
( 2) Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approxi-          cerned:                       GRASS... FEELS LIKE GRASS...
     mation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic                                        PLAYS LIKE GRASS’ — appli-
     products (OJ L 262, p. 169).                                                                        cation No 1712918
( 3) Commission Directive 2000/41/EC of 19 June 2000 postponing
     for a second time the date after which animal tests are prohibited
     for ingredients or combinations of ingredients of cosmetic            Goods or service con-         Goods and services in Classes 27
     products (OJ L 145, p 25).                                            cerned:                       and 37 (i.a. synthetic surfaces for
( 4) Commission Decision 97/579/EC of 23 July 1997 setting up                                            athletic activities)
     Scientific Committees in the field of consumer health and food
     safety (OJ L 237, p. 18).
                                                                           Decision         contested    Refusal of registration by the
                                                                           before the Board of           examiner
                                                                           Appeal:
                                                                           Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal
                                                                           Appeal:


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 November 2004 in Case C-79/04 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2002/40/EC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 18 November 2004
   in Case C-79/04 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/40/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2005/C 6/36)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-79/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Patakia and B. Schima) v Grand Duchy of Luxemboug (Agent: S. Schreiner) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 February 2004 – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 18 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2002/40/EC of 8 May 2002 implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric ovens, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 85 of 3.4.2004.


               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/31

         (2006/C 10/59)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 315, 10.12.2005

      OJ C 296, 26.11.2005

      OJ C 281, 12.11.2005

      OJ C 271, 29.10.2005

      OJ C 257, 15.10.2005

      OJ C 243, 1.10.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-42/16: Action brought on 26 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Finland

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/12

         Action brought on 26 January 2016 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-42/16)
   (2016/C 118/15)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Hottiaux and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by issuing duplicate driving licences whose administrative validity period expires on 18 January 2033, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 7(2) of Directive 2006/126/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on driving licences (1) and that, by failing to join the EU driving licence network, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC;

               —

               order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   One of the main aims of Directive 2006/126/EC is to raise the level of protection of driving licences. By applying the time limits under the directive, that aim may be realised and the latest methods made use of when issuing driving licences for preventing fraud and achieving the traffic safety objectives of the directive. Article 1 of Directive 2006/126/EC requires the introduction of a national driving licence based on the Community model in Annex I. Article 7(1) of the directive lays down requirements for driving licences and Article 7(2) defines the administrative validity of driving licences issued as from 19 February 2013. The administrative validity period of duplicate driving licences issued in Finland after 19 January 2013 can be much longer than is permitted by Article 7(2)(a) and (b) of Directive 2006/126/EC.
   In accordance with Article 7(5)(d) of Directive 2006/126/EC, the Member States are to use the EU driving licence network once the network is brought into operation. The EU driving licence network (RESPER) has been set up and it became operational on 19 January 2013. Since Finland has not joined the EU driving licence network (RESPER), it is not possible to ascertain in the network whether the conditions for issuing a driving licence are satisfied. The other Member States cannot check together with Finland the fulfilment of the conditions for issuing a driving licence, and cannot exchange information with Finland through the network. The exchange of information in accordance with Article 15 of Directive 2006/126/EC is thus not possible with Finland by using the EU driving licence network.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 403, p. 18.


title: Case T-89/13: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2015 — Calestep v ECHA (REACH — Fee due for registration of a substance — Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises — Error in the declaration of the size of the undertaking — Decision imposing an administrative charge — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/27

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2015 — Calestep v ECHA
   (Case T-89/13) (1)

   ((REACH - Fee due for registration of a substance - Reduction granted to micro, small and medium-sized enterprises - Error in the declaration of the size of the undertaking - Decision imposing an administrative charge - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Action manifestly devoid of any basis in law))
   (2015/C 381/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Calestep, SL (Estepa, Spain) (represented by: E. Cabezas Mateos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, A. Iber and C. Schultheiss, acting as Agents, and C. Garcia Molyneux, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of ECHA Decision SME (2012) 4028 of 21 December 2012, finding that the applicant does not satisfy the conditions to benefit from the reduced fees for small enterprises and imposing an administrative charge on it.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Calestep, SL shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), including those relating to the interim proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case C-409/05: Action brought on  21 November 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/16

         Action brought on 21 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-409/05)
   (2006/C 10/31)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 November 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Triandafilou. Legal adviser, and G. Wilms, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by refusing to account for and to pay own resources evaded owing to the customs-free importation of war material and by refusing to pay interest on late payment arising out of the non-payment thereof to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1552/1989 of 17 May 1989 (1) until 31 May 2000 and, thereafter, under Regulation No 1150/2000 (2)

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

               The defendant has not demonstrated that the payment of duties at low (or nil) rates would substantially harm the defence of the country within the meaning of Article 296.

               —

               Military secrecy does not afford exemption from the obligation as a matter of principle of calculating and paying the relevant duties.

               —

               The defendant cannot invoke the principle of protection of legitimate expectations on the basis of the delay in initiating proceedings.

               —

               Non-fulfilment of financial obligations to the Community imposes an undue burden on the other Member States.

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1


title: Case T-308/00: Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Salzgitter AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 335/48              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.11.2000
By the contested decision that application was rejected on the          Pleas in law and main arguments
ground that the fourth paragraph of Article 80 of the Staff
Regulations was not applicable, since it refers solely to the
                                                                        In Article 1 of the contested decision the Commission finds
death of the official’s spouse and the pension scheme of
                                                                        that the application of certain tax provisions in the former
officials does not provide for an orphan’s pension in the case
                                                                        German Zonenrandförderungsgesetz (Law on the Promotion
of the death of a cohabitee.
                                                                        of Zone Boundary Areas, ZRFG), namely special write-offs and
                                                                        tax-free reserves, taken advantage of in the past by the
By the present action, the applicant claims that her daughter’s         applicant, is incompatible with the common market.
status as an acknowledged child and an orphan must mean
that she is entitled to the orphan’s pension on the same                In its application, the applicant complains that:
conditions as when that pension is awarded to the orphaned
children of married parents.
                                                                        —     the Commission did not classify the tax measures taken
                                                                              advantage of by the applicant as general provisions of tax
She observes that it follows from Article 8 of the European                   law (to be dealt with under Article 67 CS, if at all) but as
Convention on Human Rights and from the principle of the                      aid within the meaning of Article 4(c) CS;
unicity of the civil status of persons that the Commission is
bound to have regard to all aspects of the child’s personal             —     the Commission failed to apply Article 95 CS to the tax
status, and in particular to recognise the legal effects attaching            measures at issue — if they were aid — by granting
thereto.                                                                      retrospective approval;
                                                                        —     the Commission assessed the making of special write-offs
Furthermore, the Commission has acted in breach of the
                                                                              on the acquisition of investment assets for the sectors of
principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.
                                                                              the applicant’s business which do not serve the pro-
                                                                              duction of ECSC products under Article 4(c) CS and not
                                                                              under the EC Treaty;
                                                                        —     the Commission did not recognise that the making of
                                                                              special write-offs on environment protection investments
                                                                              under Paragraph 3 of the ZRFG up to 31 December 1990
                                                                              had the same conditions and financial consequences as
                                                                              the making of special write-offs on environment protec-
Action brought on 21 September 2000 by Salzgitter AG                          tion investments under Paragraph 7d of the Einkommen-
  against the Commission of the European Communities                          steuergesetz (Law on Income Tax), which is a general
                                                                              provision of tax law applicable in the entire territory of
                        (Case T-308/00)                                       Germany;
                                                                        —     the Commission failed to state, in a form in compliance
                        (2000/C 335/92)                                       with the requirements of the Treaty, the reasons for
                                                                              which it does not regard the making of special write-offs
                                                                              on environment protection investments in the period
                  (Language of the case: German)                              after 1 January 1991 as capable of approval;
                                                                        —     the Commission used as a basis for ascertaining the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     amount of aid objected to, with respect to interest,
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                    not the actual liquidity and interest situation of the
European Communities on 21 September 2000 by Salzgitter                       undertaking but a rate of interest determined by it in
AG, of Salzgitter, Germany, represented by Jochim Sedemund,                   the abstract without taking account of the individual
Rechtsanwalt, of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Berlin.                      circumstances of the undertaking;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     the Commission, in breach of the general legal principle
                                                                              of legal certainty, also included in the scope of its decision
—     annul Commission Decision C(2000) 1963 fin. of 28 June                  the making of special write-offs which occurred in a
      2000 on State aid from Germany in favour of Salzgitter                  period which, applying Article 15 of Council Regulation
      AG, Preussag Stahl AG and the subsidiaries of the group                 (EC) No 659/1999 (1) (ten-year period) by analogy, is no
      in the iron and steel industry, now Salzgitter AG — Stahl               longer subject to recovery.
      und Technologie (SAG);
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
—     order the Commission to pay the costs;                                down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
                                                                            Treaty (OJ L 83 of 27.3.1999, p. 1).
—     order the Commission to give the applicant access to all
      procedural documents under Article 23 of the ECSC
      Statute of the Court of Justice.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 1º Juízo Cível da Comarca de Lisboa by order of that court of 29 January 1997 in the case of Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, against CTV - Confecções Têxteis de Vouzela, Lda., Amândio Maurício Martins Pechim and Maria de Luz Lima Barros Raposo Pechim (Case C-66/97)

text:
5 . 4 . 97                        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 108/ 15
        purpose of the case described in Article 5 (4 ), are                          to an appreciable extent for the purpose of advertising
        Member States otherwise free to lay down rules on the                         his own business as such by creating a specific
        matter, or does Community law in general, or the                              suggestion of quality ?
        objective and tenor of Directive 89/104/EEC in
        particular, have the effect that Member States are not                   (') OJ No L 40 , 11 . 2 . 1989, p . 1 .
        entirely free in that regard but must comply with
        specific restrictions, and if so which ?
( b ) If someone, without the authorization of the trade                         Action brought on 14 February 1997 by the Commission
        mark proprietor, makes use of that proprietor's trade                    of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
        mark, registered exclusively for specified goods, for                                               ( Case C-64/97)
        the purpose of announcing to the public that he (A )
        carries out repair and maintenance work on the goods                                                  ( 97/C 108/28 )
        which have been placed on the market under that
        trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent, or                     An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
         that he ( B ) is a specialist or is specialized with regard             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
        to such goods, does this, under the scheme of Article 5                  14 February 1997 by the Commission of the European
         of the Directive, involve :                                             Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
                                                                                Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
         (i)       use of the trade mark in relation to goods which              in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
                   are identical to those for which it was registered,           Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                   as referred to in Article 5 ( 1 ) ( a );                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
         ( ii ) use of that trade mark in relation to services
                   which must be deemed to constitute use of the
                                                                                or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 93/95/EEC of 29 October 1993
                   trade mark within the meaning of Article 5 ( 1 ) ( a )
                   or use of the trade mark as referred to in Article 5               amending Directive 89/686/EEC on the approximation
                                                                                of the laws of the Member States relating to personal
                   ( 1 ) ( b ), on the assumption that it can be stated
                                                                                protective equipment ( PPE ) ( 1 ), the Italian Republic
                   that there is an identity between those services
                                                                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                   and the goods for which the trade mark was
                   registered;                                                   — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         ( iii ) use of the trade mark as referred to in Article 5
                   (2 ; or                                                       Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                                directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
          ( iv ) use of the trade mark as referred to in Article 5                upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                    ( 5 )?                                                        Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
                                                                                down in directives for their transposition . That time-limit
                                                                                expired on 29 January 1994 without the Italian Republic
 (c ) For the purpose of answering Question ( b ), does it                        having brought into force the necessary provisions in
          make any difference whether announcement ( A) or                        order to comply with the Directive referred to in the
          announcement ( B ) is involved ?                                        Commission 's application.
                                                                                O OJ No L 276 , 9 . 11 . 1993 , p . 11 .
  ( d ) In the light of the provision in Article 7 of the
          Directive, does it make any difference, with regard to
          the question whether the proprietor of the trade mark
          can prevent use of his trade mark registered
          exclusively for specified goods, whether the use                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 1 ? Juizo Civel da
          referred to in Question ( b) is that under points ( i ), ( ii ),        Comarca de Lisboa by order of that court of 29 January
           ( iii ) or ( iv )?                                                     1997 in the case of Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA,
                                                                                against CTV — Confec^oes Texteis de Vouzela, Lda.,
                                                                                Amandio Mauricio Martins Pechim and Maria de Luz
   ( e ) On the assumption that both or one of the cases                                           Lima Barros Raposo Pechim
           described at the start of Question ( b ) involve the use
                                                                                ( Case C-66/97)
           of the proprietor's trade mark within the meaning of
           Article 5 ( 1 ), whether under Article 5 ( 1 ) ( a ) or ( b ),                                       ( 97/C 108/29
           can the proprietor prevent that use only where the
           person thus using the trade mark thereby creates the                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
           impression that his undertaking is affiliated to the                    European Communities by order of the 1 ? Juizo Civel da
           trade-mark proprietor's network, or can he also                         Comarca de Lisboa ( Civil Court No 1 , Lisbon ) of
            prevent that use where there is a good chance that the                 29 January 1997, which was received at the Court
            manner in which the trade mark is used for those                       Registry on 17 February 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
            announcements may create an impression among the                       the case of Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, against CTV
            public that the trade mark is in that regard being used                — Confeccoes         Texteis       de  Vouzela, Lda ., Amandio
 ---pagebreak--- No C 108/ 16           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                              5 . 4 . 97
Maurício Martins Pechim and Maria da Luz Lima Barros                        beekeeping constitutes one of the few forms of gainful
Raposo Pechim on the following questions:                                   activity by reason of the island's special flora and high
                                                                            proportion of uncultivated and extensively used land ?
(a ) Must the BFE ( Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA) be
      regarded as an 'undertaking' and in particular 'a               2 . If a Member State can introduce such rules, the Court
      public undertaking', within the meaning of Articles 90                is requested to describe in general the conditions
      and 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?                                        governing those rules and in particular to answer the
                                                                            following questions:
( b ) May the advantage which the BFE enjoys over its
      competitors be interpreted as being 'State aid' within                ( a ) Can a Member State introduce such rules as
      the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?                             described in 1 on the ground that the rules concern
                                                                                solely such an island as described and that the
(c ) Must such advantages be taken to be restrictions to                            effect of the rules is therefore geographically
      the freedom to provide services within the                                    limited ?
      Community, within the meaning of Article 59 of the
      Treaty of Rome ?                                                    . ( b) Can a Member State introduce such rules as
                                                                                described in 1 if the reason for those rules lies in
( d ) Do Articles 59, 90 ( 1 ), and 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty of                       the desire to protect the bee species Apis mellifera
      Rome have direct effect and may they be relied upon                           mellifera against eradication, an objective which,
      in the present proceedings ?                                                  in the Member State 's opinion, can be attained by
                                                                                excluding all other bee species from the island in
( e ) Do the rules of the Treaty of Rome take precedence                            question ?
      over and negate any conflicting national law ?
                                                                                In the criminal proceedings underlying this order
                                                                                for reference, the accused:
                                                                                (i)      disputes that there is at all any such bee
                                                                                species as Apis mellifera mellifera and submits
                                                                                that the bees at present to be found on Laeso
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Kriminalret,                                       are a mixture of different bee species;
Frederikshavn, by letter of 14 February 1997 in the case
           of the Anklagemyndighed v. Ditlev Bluhme                                 ( ii ) submits that the brown bees to be found on
                         ( Case C-67/97)                                                     Laes0 are not unique but are found in many
                                                                                parts of the world; and
                           ( 97/C 108/30 )
                                                                                ( iii ) submits that those bees are not threatened
                                                                                with eradication .
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by letter of 14 February 1997
 from the Kriminalret ( Criminal Court), Fredrikshavn,                              In its response, the Court is therefore requested to
 which was received at the Court of Registry on                                      indicate whether it is sufficient that the Member
  17 February 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                          State in question considers it appropriate or
 the Anklagemyndighed (Public Prosecution Department) v.                             necessary to introduce the rules as a step in
 Ditlev Bluhme on the following questions :                                          preserving the bee population in question, or
                                                                                whether it must be regarded as a further condition
                                  I                                                  that the bee species exists, and/or that it is unique,
                                                                                and/or that it is threatened with eradication if the
                                                                                import ban is not valid or cannot be enforced.
  Concerning the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC
  Treaty
                                                                              ( c ) If the grounds set out in points ( a ) or ( b ) cannot
                                                                                make it lawful to introduce such rules, can a
  1 . Can Article 30 be interpreted as meaning that a                                 combination of those grounds make it so lawful ?
       Member State may, under certain circumstances,
       introduce rules prohibiting the keeping — and
       consequently the importation — of all bees other than                                                  II
       bees belonging to the species Apis mellifera mellifera
       (brown Laeso bee ) with regard to a specific island in          Concerning Council Directive 91 /174/EEC of 25 March
       the country in question, for example, an island of              1991 laying down zootechnical and pedigree requirements
       114 km2, one half of which consists of country villages         for the marketing of pure-bred animals and amending
       and small ports, and is used for purposes of tourism or         Directives 77/504/EEC and 90/425/EEC (').
       agriculture, while the other half consists of
       uncultivated land, that is to say, plantations,
       moorland, meadows, tidal meadows, beaches and                   1 . Under what circumstances can a bee be a pure-bred
       dunes, which had on 1 January 1997 a population of                      animal within the meaning attached to those words by
       2 365 , and which is an island on which opportunities                   Article 2 of Directive 91/174/EEC ? Is a golden bee, for
       for gainful activity are in general limited but where                   example, a pure-bred animal ?


title: Case F-35/13: Action brought on 16 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/58

         Action brought on 16 April 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-35/13)
   2013/C 207/98
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision to calculate accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service with the Commission on the basis of the new General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare unlawful Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul the decisions of 28 September and 4 October 2012 to calculate accredited pension rights acquired by the applicant before he took up his post, in connection with the transfer of those rights into the pension scheme of the institutions of the European Union, on the basis of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-4/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld — Familienkasse v Susanne Fassbender-Firman

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 2 January 2013 — Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld — Familienkasse v Susanne Fassbender-Firman
   (Case C-4/13)
   2013/C 101/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Agentur für Arbeit Krefeld — Familienkasse

      Respondent: Susanne Fassbender-Firman

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 76(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted to the effect that the competent institution of the Member State of employment enjoys discretion in applying Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 if an application for benefits is not made in the Member State of residence of the members of the family?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative: on the basis of which discretionary considerations may the institution competent for family benefits in the Member State of employment apply Article 76(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 as if benefits had been granted in the Member State of residence of the members of the family?

               3.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative: To what extent is the discretionary decision by the competent institution subject to judicial review?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2; Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1.


title: Case C-418/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/26

         Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-418/08)
   (2008/C 301/40)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and A.A. Gilly, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 concerning environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (1), or in any event by failing to communicate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 30 April 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 143, p. 56.


title: Case C-528/09: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 25 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/31

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 25 October 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-528/09) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/50
   Language of the case: Estonian
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.03.2010.


title: Case C-541/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2015 — Mircea Florian Freitag

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Wuppertal (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2015 — Mircea Florian Freitag
   (Case C-541/15)
   (2016/C 048/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Wuppertal

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mircea Florian Freitag

      Other parties: Angela Freitag, Vica Pavel, Stadt Wuppertal, Oberbürgermeister der Stadt Wuppertal

      Question referred

   Are Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the authorities of a Member State are obliged to recognise the change of name of a national of that State if that person is at the same time a national of another Member State and has, in that other Member State, by means of a change of name not associated with a change in family-law status, (re-) acquired his original family name received at the time of birth, even though the acquisition of that name did not take place during the habitual residence of that national in that other Member State and was carried out at his own request?


title: Case T-531/14: Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Sotiropoulou and Others v Council (Non-contractual liability — Economic and monetary policy — Decisions addressed to a Member State with a view to remedying an excessive deficit situation — Reduction in and withdrawal of pension rights in Greece — Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Sotiropoulou and Others v Council
   (Case T-531/14) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Economic and monetary policy - Decisions addressed to a Member State with a view to remedying an excessive deficit situation - Reduction in and withdrawal of pension rights in Greece - Sufficiently serious infringement of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))
   (2017/C 213/32)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: Leïmonia Sotiropoulou (Patras, Greece) and the 63 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: K. Chrysogonos, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. de Gregorio Merino, E. Chatziioakeimidou and E. Dumitriu-Segnana, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action on the basis of Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of the adoption of the decisions of the Council addressed to the Hellenic Republic in activation of the mechanism provided for in Article 126 TFEU.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Leïmonia Sotiropoulou and the other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case T-460/13: Action brought on 28 August 2013 — Ranbaxy Laboratories and Ranbaxy (UK) v Commission

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/43

         Action brought on 28 August 2013 — Ranbaxy Laboratories and Ranbaxy (UK) v Commission
   (Case T-460/13)
   2013/C 325/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd (Haryana, Inde); and Ranbaxy (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Vidal, A. Penny, Solicitors, and B. Kennelly, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Article 1(4) of the Commission Decision in case COMP/39.226 — Lundbeck (citalopram) of 19 June 2013, relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, insofar as it concerns the applicants;

               —

               Annul Article 2(4) of the Commission Decision in case COMP/39.226 — Lundbeck (citalopram) of 19 June 2013, insofar as it imposes fines on the applicants or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant has erred in concluding that the Settlement Agreement entered into by the applicants qualified as an ‘object type’ infringement of Article 101(1) TFEU. As such, the applicant submits that the defendant has committed an error of law and/or assessment of the facts.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant has erred in its determination that the parties to the Settlement Agreement were at least potential competitors. As such, the applicant submits that the defendant has committed an error of law and/or assessment of the facts.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant has erred in its interpretation of the Settlement Agreement by concluding that it afforded greater protection than that which could have obtained through enforcement of the process patent. As such, the applicant submits that the defendant has committed an error of law and/or assessment of the facts.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the defendant has erred in its calculation of the penalty imposed on the applicants and as such the penalty is unjustified and disproportionate.