title: Action brought on 10 June 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-215/98)

text:
5.9.98                 EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 278/13
Ð the view taken by the Court of First Instance,                       programmes provided for by Article 6 of Council
     according to which the Commission had three months                Directive 91/157/EEC (1) of 18 March 1991 on
     in which to complete its examination, is consistent               batteries and accumulators containing certain
     neither with the Aids Code nor with the need,                     dangerous substances, the Hellenic Republic has failed
     recognised by case-law, to complete that examination              to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
     expeditiously,                                                    Directive,
Ð infringement of Article 6(6) of the Steel Aids Code and          Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
     breach of the general principles of law relating to aid:
     in proceeding on the basis of the legally erroneous
     premise that the Commission's competence is limited           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     in time, the Court of First Instance disregarded the
     case-law of the Court of Justice, according to which a
                                                                   Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
     definitive order for the repayment of aid must
                                                                   directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
     invariably be preceded by a conclusive opinion of the
                                                                   upon each Member State to which they are addressed.
     Commission finding the aid substantively illegal. By
                                                                   Under the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty,
     concluding from a failure to comply with a time-limit
                                                                   Member States are to take all appropriate measures,
     Ð which not even the Commission regards as a
                                                                   whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the
     prescriptive deadline, and which it has in numerous
                                                                   obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from
     parallel cases treated as a mere administrative deadline
                                                                   action taken by the institutions of the Community.
     for notification purposes Ð that the aid was
     substantively illegal, the Court of First Instance
     unlawfully confused the formal and the substantive            It is not disputed that, up until the time when this
     aspects of the aid procedure,                                 application was drafted, the Hellenic Republic still had
                                                                   not drawn up programmes for the period from 18 March
Ð breach of the prohibition of discrimination: in dealing          1993 to 18 March 1997 as provided for by Article 6 of the
     extremely summarily with this head of claim, the              Directive, nor had it communicated to the Commission
     Court of First Instance failed to comment on the              programmes to secure the objectives laid down by that
     comparison made by the appellant between its own              Article.
     situation and the aid case of EKO Stahl,
                                                                   The Commission is therefore obliged to find that the
Ð breach of the principle of protection of legitimate              Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     expectations,                                                 the Treaty and Directive 91/157/EEC.
Ð breach of the obligation to provide a statement of               (1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 38.
     reasons.
(1) OJ C 166, 30.5.1998, p. 14.
(2) Decision No 3855/91/ECSC (OJ L 362, 31.12.1991, p. 57).
                                                                   Action brought on 16 June 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-221/98)
Action brought on 10 June 1998 by the Commission of                                         (98/C 278/23)
 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                        (Case C-215/98)
                                                                   An action against the French Republic was brought before
                         (98/C 278/22)                             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                   16 June 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, of its
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities            in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
on 10 June 1998 by the Commission of the European                  Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande,
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of            The Commission of the European Communities claims
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                       that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:                       1. declare that:
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or to communicate                  Ð by not allowing students, who are nationals of
     to the Commission within the prescribed period the                     other Member States and seek to have their right


title: Case C-472/01 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on 19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-121/00 between Procter & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
16.3.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 68/3
Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &                         established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on                       represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-119/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and                      The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                       —     annul the judgment
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                       —     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance
                       (Case C-470/01 P)                                     and on appeal.
                         (2002/C 68/05)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance              See case C-468/01 P.
of the European Communities in case T-119/00 between
Procter & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in               (1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 22.
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,
established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
                                                                       Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                            Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
—     annul the judgment                                               19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court
                                                                       of First Instance of the European Communities in case
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance           T-121/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and
      and on appeal.                                                   Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case C-472/01 P)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 68/07)
See case C-468/01 P.
(1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 21.                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
                                                                       2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities in case T-121/00 between Procter
                                                                       & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                       Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &                         ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,
Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on                       established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
19 september 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court                   represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-120/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and                      The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                             —     annul the judgment
                       (Case C-471/01 P)                               —     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance
                                                                             and on appeal.
                         (2002/C 68/06)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of           See case C-468/01 P.
the European Communities in case T-120/00 between Procter
& Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was                   (1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 22.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,


title: Case C-48/14: Action brought on 30 January 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/21

         Action brought on 30 January 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-48/14)
   2014/C 102/30
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and J. Rodrigues)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Directive 2013/51/Euratom of 22 October 2013 laying down requirements for the protection of the health of the general public with regard to radioactive substances in water intended for human consumption. (1)

               —

               order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Parliament puts forward three pleas in law in support of its action.
   In the first place, the Parliament claims that the choice of legal basis made by the Council is mistaken, on the ground that the measures covered by the contested directive fall within the responsibilities of the European Union in the field of the protection of the environment, referred to in Article 192 TFEU. Those measures should therefore have been adopted on the basis of that article, following the ordinary legislative procedure, and not on the basis of Articles 31 and 32 EA.
   In the second place, the Parliament claims that the contested directive undermines legal certainty in so far as it establishes rules of review and analysis which duplicate those already in force under Directive 98/83/EC. (2)

   In the final place, the Parliament considers that by adopting the contested directive, the Council infringed the principle of loyal cooperation between the institutions, referred to in Article 13(2) TEU.

      (1)  OJ 2013 L 296, p. 12.

      (2)  Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Protodikio, Piraeus (Fourth Chamber (Three Judges)), by judgment of that court of 29 May 1998 in the case of Henkel Hellas ABEE against the Greek State (Case C-350/98)

text:
21.11.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 358/7
Correia Ferreira, his spouse, against Companhia de                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko
Seguros Mundial ConfiancËa S.A. on the following                   Protodikio, Piraeus (Fourth Chamber (Three Judges)), by
questions:                                                         judgment of that court of 29 May 1998 in the case of
                                                                           Henkel Hellas ABEE against the Greek State
1. Does Article 3 of Council Directive 84/5/EEC (1)                                       (Case C-350/98)
    require compulsory insurance against civil liability in
    respect of the use of motor vehicles to cover injury                                   (98/C 358/15)
    caused to the members of the family of the insured
    person or of the driver of the vehicle even where those
    persons are carried free of charge or where only strict
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    civil liability, without negligence, arises, or may the
                                                                   European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko
    Member State exclude the award of any compensation
                                                                   Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance),
    in such cases?
                                                                   Piraeus (Fourth Chamber (Three Judges)), of 29 May
                                                                   1998, received at the Court Registry on 24 September
2. Are the minimum capital sums insured laid down in               1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Henkel
    Article 1(2) of Directive 84/5/EEC also applicable to          Hellas ABEE against the Greek State on the following
    situations where strict civil liability, without               questions:
    negligence, arises or may the Member State legislate to
    the effect that, where there is no negligence on the
    part of the driver of the vehicle causing the accident,
                                                                   1. Is the duty charged by the Greek state pursuant to
    the maximum limits of the compensation payable are
                                                                       Article 42(6) of Law 2065/1992 equivalent to the
    to be lower than those limits?
                                                                       capital duty laid down by Article 4 of Council
                                                                       Directive 66/335/EEC (1) as subsequently amended,
3. Must the national court interpret its domestic law so               taking into account that on 1 July 1984 no such
    as to render it compatible with the provisions of a                capital duty existed in Greece?
    directive where the directive has been defectively
    transposed or where pre-existing provisons of
    domestic law remain in force?                                  2. If so, taking account of Greece's special fiscal
                                                                       situation, may the rate of that duty exceed the rate of
4. Is that the case even where that interpretation is                  1 % in the abovementioned directive?
    contrary to the construction generally put on the
    meaning and scope of the provisions of its domestic            (1) OJ L 249, 3.10.1969, p. 25.
    law, or even where that interpretation is consonant
    with the intentions of the national legislature, which
    has nevertheless not succeeded in expressing them in
    the text of the law?
5. And must the national court adopt that interpretation
    conforming to the provisions of the Community
                                                                   Appeal brought on 24 September 1998 by Laboratories
    directive even in a dispute involving only private
                                                                   Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-Jacques Goupil
    persons?
                                                                   against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998 by the
                                                                   Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
6. Must the national court adopt an interpretation of its          European Communities in Case T-199/96 between
    domestic law conforming to the provisions of Article 1         Laboratories Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-
    of Council Directive 90/232/EEC (2) even in the case of        Jacques Goupil and the Commission of the European
    an accident which occurred before the end of the                                        Communities
    period allowed for the Member State to transpose that
                                                                                (Case C-352/98 P)
    provision into its domestic law?
                                                                                (98/C 358/16)
7. If it should be concluded that it is not possible to
    interpret domestic law so as to render it consonant
    with the provisions of a directive, does the primacy of
                                                                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 July 1998
    Community law mean that the national court must
                                                                   by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
    exclude the application of domestic provisions which
                                                                   European Communities in Case T-199/96 between
    are incompatible with the directive, even in the case of
                                                                   Laboratories Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-
    a dispute involving only private persons?
                                                                   Jacques Goupil and the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
(1) OJ L 8, 11.1.1984, p. 17.                                      the European Communities on 24 September 1998 by
(2) OJ L 129, 19.5.1990, p. 33.                                    Laboratories Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-
                                                                   Jacques Goupil, represented by Jean-Pierre Spitzer and
                                                                   Yves-Marie Moray, of the Paris Bar.


title: Case C-260/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesfinanzdirektion West v Heko Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH (Community Customs Code — Article 24 — Non-preferential origin of goods — Definition of substantial processing or working — Criterion for a change of tariff heading — Steel cables manufactured in North Korea using stranded steel wire originating in China)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 December 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesfinanzdirektion West v Heko Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH
   (Case C-260/08) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Article 24 - Non-preferential origin of goods - Definition of ‘substantial processing or working’ - Criterion for a change of tariff heading - Steel cables manufactured in North Korea using stranded steel wire originating in China)
   2010/C 24/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundesfinanzdirektion West

      Defendant: Heko Industrieerzeugnisse GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) –Determining the origin of steel cables manufactured in North Korea under a process using steel wires originating in China — Criteria to be taken into consideration for the purpose of treating a given manufacturing stage as establishing the non-preferential origin of a product — Potential significance of the fact that the tariff heading remains unchanged subsequent to the processing at issue.

      Operative part of the judgment

   With regard to goods classified under heading 7312 of the Combined Nomenclature constituting Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, ‘substantial processing or working’ within the meaning of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, may cover not only such processing or working as leads to the goods which have undergone the process being classified under a different heading of the Combined Nomenclature, but also such processing or working as results, without such a change of heading, in the creation of a product with properties and a composition of its own which it did not have before the process.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case T-396/09 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 17 December 2009 — Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission (Interim measures — Obligation of the Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality — Exemption granted to a Member State — Commission’s refusal to review — Application for suspension of operation of a measure and interim measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/38

         Order of the President of the General Court of 17 December 2009 — Vereniging Milieudefensie and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht v Commission
   (Case T-396/09 R)
   (Interim measures - Obligation of the Member States to protect and improve ambient air quality - Exemption granted to a Member State - Commission’s refusal to review - Application for suspension of operation of a measure and interim measures - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 37/53
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Vereniging Milieudefensie (Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Stichting Stop Luchtverontreiniging Utrecht (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: A. van den Biesen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver, W. Roels and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

      Re:

   Application (i) for suspension of operation of Decision C (2009) 6121 of 28 July 2009 declaring inadmissible the applicants’ request for review by the Commission of its Decision C (2009) 2560 final of 7 April 2009 granting the Kingdom of the Netherlands a temporary exemption from its obligations in combating ambient air pollution; and (ii) for interim measures requiring the Kingdom of the Netherlands to comply with those obligations at the earliest opportunity.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-286/05: Action brought on 18 July 2005 by the Centre Européen pour la Statistique et le Développement A.s.b.l. (C.E.S.D.) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/34

         Action brought on 18 July 2005 by the Centre Européen pour la Statistique et le Développement A.s.b.l. (C.E.S.D.) against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-286/05)
   (2005/C 229/73)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 July 2005 by the Centre Européen pour la Statistique et le Développement A.s.b.l. (C.E.S.D.), established in Luxembourg, represented by D. Grisay, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that the Commission's decision of 18 May 2005 is void on the ground that it results from misuse of powers, and/or that it is vitiated by failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment;

               2.

               alternatively, declare that the said decision is void, in so far as it concerns the 25 contracts not covered by the audit;

               3.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Following the irregularities found within DG-EUROSTAT, the Commission adopted the contested decision by which it instructed the delegated authorising officers to terminate as soon as possible, in accordance with the procedures provided for by the contracts, all contractual relationships with certain entities, including the applicant.
   In support of its action, the applicant alleges misuse of the Commission's powers, on the ground that the contested decision evades the particular dispute resolution procedures provided for by each contract and substitutes for them the unilateral method of a decision based on Article 93(1)(f) of Regulation No 1605/2002. (1) The applicant relies, in the same context, on the contested decision's alleged failure to state reasons.
   The applicant also pleads the contested decision's manifest error of assessment, in the characterisation of the facts alleged against it as a serious breach of contract, in the terms of Article 93(1)(f) of Regulation No 1605/2002.
   Finally, the applicant alleges that the contested decision is based on an audit concerning only one of the contracts concluded between it and the Commission and that, therefore, it is vitiated by failure to state reasons, at least in so far as the 25 other contracts not covered by the audit are concerned.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities, OJ of 16.9.2002, p. 1.


title: Case C-187/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica (Confetra) and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Others

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica (Confetra) and Others v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Others
   (Case C-187/13)
   2013/C 207/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Confederazione Generale Italiana dei Trasporti e della Logistica (Confetra) and Others

      Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti and Others

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the protection of freedom of competition, free movement of undertakings, freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services (under Article 4(3) TEU, Article 101 TFEU, and Articles 49, 56 and 96 TFEU) compatible — and, if so, to what extent — with statutory provisions adopted by EU Member States which lay down minimum operating costs for the road haulage sector which involve the fixing by bodies external [to the contracting parties] of a component of the charge for the service concerned and, accordingly, of the contract price?

               2.

               Are such limitations of those principles justifiable — and, if so, under what conditions — in the light of the need to safeguard the public interest in road traffic safety and, in terms of that functional consideration, is there a proper place for the fixing of minimum operating costs as provided for under Article 83a of Legislative Decree No 112/2008 (as subsequently amended and supplemented)?

               3.

               Can the determination of minimum operating costs, to the above end, be left — in the absence of criteria predetermined by the legislation — to voluntary agreements between the types of trader concerned, failing which to bodies whose composition is characterised by the strong presence of persons representing private traders in that sector?


title: Case C-66/02: Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.5.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 109/33
Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Italian                            under Article 87(3) of the Treaty. That constitutes not
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                         only a methodological error but also a failure to state
                              munities                                       reasons.
                          (Case C-66/02)                               (d) Specifically as regards the reference to Article 87(3)(b) of
                                                                             the Treaty, reconstruction of the origins of the Ciampi
                                                                             law and of Legislative Decree No 153/99 clearly shows
                         (2002/C 109/56)                                     how the Italian legislature sought, by means of the
                                                                             various measures adopted, to bring about a significant
                                                                             structural change in the Italian market for banking
                                                                             services: the full and final privatisation of all Italian banks.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    In order to achieve that objective it was necessary for the
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                 banks to divest themselves of any controlling interests
Communities on 28 February 2002 by the Italian Republic,                     still held in savings banks and local banks. The elimination
represented by U. Leanza, acting as Agent, and M. Fiorilli,                  or reduction of the Italian banks’ substantial and persist-
avvocato dello Stato.                                                        ent holdings of public funds, or at least of funds that are
                                                                             not attractive to private investors did not, contrary to
                                                                             the Commission’s clear finding, distort competition by
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  favouring the recipient undertakings over others but, as
                                                                             in the case of the southern Italian public banks, resulted
                                                                             in the reduction of distortions existing prior to the reform
—     Annul the Commission’s Decision of 11 December 2001                    in question between genuinely private banks and those
      in proceeding no C-54/A/2000/EC against the Italian                    which are private in form only, but not as regards
      Republic, notified on 13 January 2002, in that there are               the control of capital. In the opinion of the Italian
      insufficient grounds for holding that the fiscal measures              Government, the full and final privatisation of the Italian
      accompanying the reform of the Italian banking system                  banks constitutes a ‘project of common European interest’
      constitute ‘State aid’;                                                which, under Article 87(3)(b), justifies a system of aid to
                                                                             promote its implementation.
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Italian Government claims that the contested decision is
unlawful for the following reasons:
                                                                       Action brought on 28 February 2002 by the Commission
(a)   The Commission failed to comply with the obligation to                   of the European Communities against Ireland
      state the reasons upon which the adopted decision was
      based.
                                                                                (Case C-67/02)
(b) The law, which has been called in question with regard
      to the effect on competition of the accompanying fiscal                                    (2002/C 109/57)
      measure, must be regarded as the final part of a process
      of reform of the Italian system of credit and, therefore, as
      part of an economic reform which should be assessed in
      its general and Community law context. The relevance of
      that law cannot be appreciated unless the state of the           An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
      sector prior to the reform is taken into account. The            Justice of the European Communities on 28 February 2002 by
      contested decision wholly fails to consider those aspects.       the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                       by Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service
(c)   In addressing the Italian Government’s counter-argu-             in Luxembourg
      ments the Commission does not distinguish between
      those concerned with the issue whether the fiscal
      measures under investigation may be characterised as             The Applicant claims that the Court should:
      ‘State aid’ and those concerned with the alternative issue
      whether, if those measures are found to be ‘State aid’,
      they qualify for exemption. The Commission possessed             —     declare that Ireland has failed to fulfill its obligations
      all the information required to assess whether the law in              under Council Directive 79/923/EEC (1) on the quality
      question constituted a prohibited ‘State aid’ within the               required of shellfish waters by reason of its failure to
      meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, or whether it may              adopt programmes for all of its designated shellfish
      be considered to be compatible with the common market                  waters in accordance with Article 5 of the Directive;


title: Case T-4/06: Action brought on  12 January 2006  — Republic of Poland v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/27

         Action brought on 12 January 2006 — Republic of Poland v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-4/06)
   (2006/C 74/52)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: Jarosław Pietras, Agent of the Government)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year (OJ 2005 L 271 of 15.10.2005, p. 12) to be invalid;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks a declaration of invalidity in respect of Article 2 of Regulation No 1686/2005, which sets the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year with a view to covering the outstanding balance of the overall loss, in accordance with Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 (1). The disputed article of the regulation sets out different coefficients for the additional levy for, on the one hand, the States constituting the Community prior to 1 May 2004 and, on the other, the ‘new’ Member States.
   In support of its action, the applicant sets out the following heads of complaint:

               —

               lack of competence on the part of the European Commission and breach of Article 16 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001, which, in the view of the applicant, empowers the European Commission to establish only one coefficient in a set amount for the entire Community, a fact which, according to the applicant, is confirmed by the various unequivocal and, in this regard, concordant language versions of the provisions contained in the regulation. The applicant further submits that the principles of the common organisation of the markets within the sugar sector not only cannot amount to justification for a departure from the textual interpretation of the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 but also rule out any such departure;

               —

               infringement of the principle of immediate and full acceptance of the acquis communautaire by the new Member States; according to the applicant, the differential coefficient for the additional levy is in fact a transitional measure which has no basis in the Act of Accession or in the measures adopted pursuant thereto. The applicant refers in this regard to Article 2 of the Act of Accession, which is the basis for the adoption by the Republic of Poland of the full rights and obligations flowing from membership, and which, in the view of the applicant, is also linked to the assumption of entitlement to benefit from overpayments and the obligation to make good losses on the market in sugar which have arisen over the preceding marketing years;

               —

               infringement of the principle of non-discrimination; the applicant criticises the Commission on the ground that the sole criterion for the differentiation in the coefficient in the regulation under challenge is the date on which Member States acceded to the European Union. In the applicant's view, the consequences of accession were exhaustively regulated in the Act of Accession and the measures adopted on the basis of that Act, and the date on which the European Union was enlarged cannot be an objective criterion capable of providing justification for the differentiation thus introduced;

               —

               infringement of the principle of solidarity; according to the applicant, the differentiation in the coefficient vis-à-vis the other Member States amounts to an arbitrary and disproportionate distribution of the costs of financing the sugar market and one which highlights a dearth of solidarity;

               —

               inadequate grounds given for the contested measure by reason of the European Commission's failure to indicate either the circumstances which could justify the differentiation in the coefficient or the objectives which such a differentiation ought to serve;

               —

               breach of an essential procedural requirement, inasmuch as Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 was adopted in a manner contrary to the requirements of Article 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Management Committee for Sugar and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (2) by reason of the fact that the European Commission, according to the applicant's contentions, did not submit during the 'comitological' procedure, a Polish-language version of the draft version of the contested measure. The applicant submits that this infringement is particularly flagrant in nature inasmuch as it relates to the draft version of a legal measure and reflects a consistent practice of the European Commission within the framework of the Management Committee for Sugar.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178 of 30.06.2001, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ, English Special Edition 1952-1958, p. 59, as amended.


title: Case T-413/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 2009 — Bayern Innovativ v OHIM — Life Sciences Partners Perstock (LifeScience) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community trade mark LifeScience — Earlier Community trade mark Life Sciences Partners — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/37

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 2009 — Bayern Innovativ v OHIM — Life Sciences Partners Perstock (LifeScience)
   (Case T-413/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark LifeScience - Earlier Community trade mark Life Sciences Partners - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 69/85)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Bayern Innovativ — Bayerische Gesellschaft für Innovation und Wissenstransfer mbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Beschorner, B. Glaser and C. Thomas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Life Sciences Partners Perstock NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 August 2007 (Case R 1545/2006-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Life Sciences Partners Perstock NV and Bayern Innovativ — Bayerische Gesellschaft für Innovation und Wissenstransfer mbH.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Bayern Innovativ — Bayerische Gesellschaft für Innovation und Wissenstransfer mbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case C-524/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Eycke Braun v Land Baden-Württemberg (Request for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Article 10(c) — Conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company not involving any increase in capital — Fees demanded for the drawing up of a notarial act recording that conversion)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Eycke Braun v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-524/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Article 10(c) - Conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company not involving any increase in capital - Fees demanded for the drawing up of a notarial act recording that conversion))
   2014/C 292/12
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Karlsruhe

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Eycke Braun

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 10(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the Treasury is to receive a share of the fees charged by a notary employed as a civil servant when he draws up a notarial act recording a transaction concerning the conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company, and which does not lead to an increase in the capital of the company making the acquisition or changing its legal form.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-210/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to a procedure for the application of the competition rules — Refusal to grant access — Duty to state reasons — Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party — Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits — Overriding public interest — Consultation with third parties — Transparency — No response to a confirmatory request with the time limits)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — Deutsche Telekom v Commission
   (Case T-210/15) (1)

   ((Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to a procedure for the application of the competition rules - Refusal to grant access - Duty to state reasons - Exception relating to the protection of the commercial interests of a third party - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - Overriding public interest - Consultation with third parties - Transparency - No response to a confirmatory request with the time limits))
   (2017/C 151/36)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and O. Corzilius, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by J. Vondung and A. Buchet, and subsequently by F. Erlbacher, P. Van Nuffel and A. Dawes, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of the Commission decision of 17 February 2015 refusing to grant the applicant access to documents relating to the procedure for abuse of dominant position with reference COMP/AT.40089 — Deutsche Telekom.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Deutsche Telekom AG is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.


title: Case C-193/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2008 — Landwirtschaftsamt (German Agricultural Office) v Hermann Fischer, Rolf Schlatter and the Regierungspräsidium Freiburg

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 May 2008 — Landwirtschaftsamt (German Agricultural Office) v Hermann Fischer, Rolf Schlatter and the Regierungspräsidium Freiburg
   (Case C-193/08)
   (2008/C 183/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings
   Hermann Fischer, Rolf Schlatter and the Regierungspräsidium Freiburg
   Question referred
   Must Article 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons be interpreted as meaning that, as regards access to a self-employed activity and the pursuit thereof, only self-employed persons within the meaning of Article 12(1) of Annex I to the agreement are to be afforded no less favourable treatment in the host country than that accorded to its own nationals, or does this also apply to self-employed frontier workers within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Annex I to the agreement (1)?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.


title: Case C-475/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 17 October 2014  — AAS Gjensidige Baltic, acting through the Lithuanian branch of AAS Gjensidige Baltic v UAB DK PZU Lietuva

text:
               12.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 17 October 2014 — AAS Gjensidige Baltic, acting through the Lithuanian branch of AAS Gjensidige Baltic v UAB DK PZU Lietuva
   (Case C-475/14)
   (2015/C 007/20)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: AAS Gjensidige Baltic, acting through the Lithuanian branch of AAS Gjensidige Baltic

      Other party to the proceedings: UAB DK PZU Lietuva

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 14(b) of Directive 2009/103/EC (1) lay down a conflict-of-law rule, which ratione personae should be applied not only to the victims of road traffic accidents but also to the insurers of the vehicle responsible for the damage caused in the accident, for the purposes of determining the law applicable to the relations between them, and is this provision a special rule with respect to the rules on the applicable law laid down in the Rome I (2) and Rome II (3) regulations?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, it is important to ascertain whether the legal relations between the insurers in the present case fall within the concept of ‘contractual obligations’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Rome I regulation. If the legal relations between the insurers do fall within the concept of ‘contractual obligations’, the important question is then whether those relations fall within the category of insurance contracts (legal relations) and the law applicable to them should be determined in accordance with Article 7 of the Rome I regulation.

               3.

               If the first two questions are answered in the negative, it is important to ascertain whether, in the case of a claim for recourse, the legal relations between the insurers of vehicles used in a combination fall within the concept of a ‘non-contractual obligation’ within the meaning of the Rome II regulation and whether or not these relations should be treated as derivative legal relations arising as a result of the road traffic accident (delict), when determining the applicable law in accordance with Article 4(1) of the Rome II regulation. In a case such as the present case, should the insurers of the vehicles used in a combination be treated as debtors who are liable for the same claim within the meaning of Article 20 of the Rome II regulation, and should the law applicable to the relations between them be determined according to that rule?

      (1)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40).


title: Case T-785/14: Action brought on 29 November 2014  — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — STD Tekstil (MOTORTOWN)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/41

         Action brought on 29 November 2014 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — STD Tekstil (MOTORTOWN)
   (Case T-785/14)
   (2015/C 034/49)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Rivas Zurdo and M. Toro Gordillo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: STD Tekstil Limited Sirketi (Istanbul, Turkey)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘MOTORTOWN’ — Application for registration No 1 0 3 51  931

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 September 2014 in Case R 1960/2013-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, in which the Board of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and affirmed the decision of the Opposition Division partially upholding Opposition No B 1 9 51  774 and rejecting in part Community figurative mark application No 1 0 3 51  931‘MOTORTOWN’; and

               —

               order the party or parties opposing the action to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-102/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze, lodged on 13 March 2009 — Camar Srl v Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Firenze, lodged on 13 March 2009 — Camar Srl v Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri
   (Case C-102/09)
   2009/C 129/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Firenze

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Camar Srl

      Defendant: Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Questions referred

               1.

               Did Article 14 of the First Yaoundé Convention preclude the introduction by a Member State of an internal tax on bananas originating in Somalia, which was not in practice applied to domestically produced bananas (the production of which was totally non-existent or insignificant) and was not applicable to any other type of domestically produced fruit?
               In the event of an affirmative answer to the foregoing question:

               2.

               Did the Protocol on Bananas annexed to the Lomé Convention then in force preclude collection of a tax that was incompatible with Article 14 of the First Yaoundé Convention in respect of imports into Italy of Somali bananas effected in 1990, having regard to the combined provisions of that protocol and of the like protocols annexed to the earlier Lomé Conventions, and also Article 5 of the Second Yaoundé Convention?
               In the event of a negative answer:

               3.

               Must it be concluded that the Protocols on Bananas annexed to the Lomé Conventions precluded increases of a tax such as the Italian consumption tax on bananas originating in Somalia after 1 April 1976 regardless of the specific effect of such increases on the export of such bananas?


title: Case C-553/09 P: Order of the President of the Court of 21 April 2010 — BCS SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Deere & Company

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/16

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 April 2010 — BCS SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Deere & Company
   (Case C-553/09 P) (1)

   2010/C 195/25

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 51, 27.2.2010.


title: Case C-586/11 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2013 — Regione Puglia v Italian Republic, European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — ERDF — Decision reducing financial aid — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Regional body — Act directly affecting that body — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 304/2

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 July 2013 — Regione Puglia v Italian Republic, European Commission
   (Case C-586/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - ERDF - Decision reducing financial aid - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regional body - Act directly affecting that body - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 304/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Regione Puglia (represented by: F. Brunelli and A. Aloia, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato), European Commission (represented by: L. Prete and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) of 14 September 2011 in Case T-84/10 Regione Puglia v Commission, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment in part of Decision C(2009) 10350 of the European Commission of 22 December 2009 concerning the reduction in the financial aid from the European Regional Development Fund granted under Commission Decision C(2000) 2349 of 8 August 2000 approving the operational programme POR Puglia for the period from 2000 to 2006, under objective No 1 — Absence of oral procedure — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Not directly affected — Inadmissibility — Insufficient reasons

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Regione Puglia shall pay the costs.

               3.

               The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-59/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret by order of 14 February 2000 in the case of Bent Mousten Vestergaard v Spøttrup Boligselskab

text:
C 122/14              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       29.4.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                   Question 2
Ordinario di Roma — Fourth Labour Chamber — by
order of that court of 1 February 2000, in the case of
                                                                      ‘Is a public body which invites tenders for works which are
Elide Gottardo v Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza
                                                                      not covered by the works directive (Directive 93/37), inasmuch
                         Sociale (INPS)
                                                                      as the threshold value is not exceeded, entitled to stipulate in
                                                                      the tender documents that a specified make must be used in the
                         (Case C-55/00)                               case where the relevant requirement in the tender documents is
                                                                      not accompanied by the words “or an equivalent make”?’
                        (2000/C 122/23)
                                                                      Question 3
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunale
Ordinario di Roma (Rome District Court) — Fourth Labour               ‘If Question 1 or Question 2 is answered in the negative, can
Chamber — of 1 February 2000, which was received at the               such wording of tender documents as described in Questions 1
Court Registry on 21 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling          and 2 be regarded as constituting an infringement of Article 12
in the case of Elide Gottardo v Istituto Nazionale della              EC or Article 28 EC?’
Previdenza Sociale (INPS), on the following question on the
interpretation of Articles 6 and 48(2) of the EC Treaty (now
Articles 12 EC and 39(2) EC):                                         (1) Of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for
                                                                          the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54).
‘Whether or not a worker who is a citizen of a Member State
with a record of payments of social security contributions to
the competent institution of another Member State is entitled
to be awarded an old-age pension on the basis of aggregation
of the contributions paid to the institution of a State outside
the Union under the convention which the Member State has
concluded with the latter and which it applies to its own
citizens.’                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration
                                                                      Appeal Tribunal, by order of that court of 16 December
                                                                      1999, in the case of Mary Carpenter against Secretary of
                                                                                State for the Home Department
                                                                                (Case C-60/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 122/25)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret
by order of 14 February 2000 in the case of Bent Mousten
             Vestergaard v Spøttrup Boligselskab                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal
                                                                      Tribunal, of 16 December 1999, which was received at the
                         (Case C-59/00)                               Court Registry on 21 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      in the case of Mary Carpenter against Secretary of State for the
                        (2000/C 122/24)                               Home Department on the following question:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                In circumstances where:
European Communities by order of 14 February 2000 by the
Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which was received          a) a national of a Member State, who is established in that
at the Court Registry on 23 February 2000, for a preliminary               Member State and who provides services to persons in
ruling in the case of Bent Mousten Vestergaard v Spøttrup                  other Member States; and
Boligselskab on the following questions:
                                                                      b) has a spouse who is not a national of a Member State;
Question 1                                                            can the non-national spouse rely on
‘Is a public body which invites tenders for works which are           1) Article 49 EC and/or
not covered by the works directive (Directive 93/37) (1),
inasmuch as the threshold value is not exceeded, entitled to          2) Directive 73/148/EEC (1)
stipulate in the tender documents that a specified Danish make
must be used in the case where the relevant requirement in the        to provide the non-national spouse with the right to reside
tender documents is not accompanied by the words “or an               with his or her spouse in his or her spouse’s Member State of
equivalent make”?’                                                    origin?


title: Case T-275/13: Action brought on 23 May 2013 — Italy v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/49

         Action brought on 23 May 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-275/13)
   2013/C 207/81
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, lawyer, G. Palmieri, agent)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul notice of open competition EPSO/AD/249/13 to draw up two reserve lists of 37 and 27 posts respectively to fill vacant posts for administrators (AD 7) in the fields of macroeconomics and financial economics.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action has been brought against notice of open competition EPSO/AD/249/13 to draw up two reserve lists of 37 and 27 posts respectively to fill vacant posts for administrators (AD 7) in the fields of macroeconomics and financial economics
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven plea(s) in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging breach of Articles 263, 264 and 266 TFEU.

                           —

                           The Commission has disregarded the authority of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P, which declares competition notices which limit to English, French and German only the languages which candidates may offer as a second language to be unlawful.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of Article 342 TFEU and Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58.

                           —

                           It is argued in this regard that, by limiting to three the languages which can be chosen as a second language by candidates in open competitions of the European Union, the Commission has in practice created new rules on the use of languages, thus encroaching on the exclusive competence of the Council in this area.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of Article 12 EC, now Article 18 TFEU; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union; Article 6(3) EU; Article 1(2) and (3) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations of Officials; Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58; Article 1d(1) and (6), Article 27, second paragraph, and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations of Officials.

                           —

                           It is argued in this regard that the language restriction introduced by the Commission is discriminatory because the rules cited prohibit the imposition on European citizens and on officials of the institutions language restrictions which are not provided for in a general and objective manner by the internal rules of the institutions contemplated by Article 6 of Regulation No 1/58, and not yet adopted, and prohibit the introduction of such limitations in the absence of a specific interest of the service, backed up by reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, concerning the breach of Article 6(3) EU in so far as it lays down the principle of the protection of legitimate interests as a fundamental right derived from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.

                           —

                           It is argued in this regard that the Commission has breached the expectation of citizens that they will be able to choose any language of the European Union as a second language, as they always were until 2007 and as was authoritatively confirmed by the judgment of the court of Justice in Case C-566/10 P.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, concerning the misuse of powers and the breach of essential rules inherent in the nature and purpose of competition notices.

                           —

                           It is argued in this regard that, by restricting to three in advance and in general the languages which may be chosen as a second language to three, the Commission has in fact anticipated at the stage of the notice and the admission criteria the verification of the linguistic competences of the candidates, which should be carried out during the competition. In that way, linguistic knowledge becomes the decisive factor with regard to professional knowledge.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, concerning breach of Articles 18 and 24(4) TFEU; Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; Article 2 of Regulation No 1/58; and Article 1d(1) and (6) of the Staff Regulations of Officials.

                           —

                           It is argued in this regard that, through the provision that applications had to be sent in in English, French or German and that EPSO would send candidates communications relating to the progress of the competition in the same language, the right of European citizens to dialogue with the European institutions in their own language has been breached and further discrimination has been introduced against those who do not have a thorough knowledge of those three languages.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, concerning the breach of Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 1/58; Article 1d(1) and (6) and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations, Article 1(1)(f) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations; and Article 296(2) TFEU (failure to state reasons) and breach of the principle of proportionality. Distortion of the facts.

                           —

                           It is argued in this regard that the Commission justified the restriction to three languages by the requirement that the new recruits should be able to communicate within the institutions. That justification distorts the facts because it is not the case that the three languages in question are the ones most used for communication between the various language groups within the institutions; and it is disproportionate with regard to the restriction of a fundamental right such as the right not to suffer discrimination on grounds of language.


title: Case T-714/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/36

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Case T-714/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/65)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case C-179/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 25 March 2016 — F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, La Roche SpA, Novartis AG and Novartis Farma SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) lodged on 25 March 2016 — F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, La Roche SpA, Novartis AG and Novartis Farma SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
   (Case C-179/16)
   (2016/C 222/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, La Roche SpA, Novartis AG and Novartis Farma SpA

      Respondent: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper construction of Article 101 TFEU, can the parties to a licensing agreement be regarded as competitors if the licensee company operates on the relevant market concerned solely by virtue of that agreement? Do possible restrictions of competition between the licenser and the licensee in such a situation, although not explicitly provided for in the licensing agreement, fall outside the scope of Article 101(1) TFEU or fall within the scope of the exception set out in Article 101(3) TFEU and, if so, within what limits?

               2.

               Does Article 101 TFEU allow the National Competition Authority to define the relevant market autonomously vis-à-vis the content of marketing authorisations (MAs) for medicinal products granted by the competent pharmaceutical regulatory authorities (the Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco and the European Medicines Agency), or must the relevant market for the purposes of Article 101 TFEU instead be held to be primarily shaped and established in respect of the authorised medicinal products by the appropriate regulatory authority in a way binding on the National Competition Authority also?

               3.

               In the light of the provisions of Directive 2001/83/EC, (1) in particular Article 5 thereof, which relates to marketing authorisations for medicinal products, does Article 101 TFEU allow a medicinal product used off-label and a medicinal product that has received an MA in respect of the same therapeutic indications to be regarded as interchangeable and, thus, to be included in the same relevant market?

               4.

               Pursuant to Article 101 TFEU, for the purposes of defining the relevant market, is it important to establish, in addition to the essential fungibility of pharmaceutical products on the demand side, whether or not those products have been supplied on the market in accordance with the regulatory framework concerning the marketing of medicinal products?

               5.

               In any event, can a concerted practice intended to emphasise that a medicinal product is less safe or less effective be regarded as intended to restrict competition, when the idea that that product is less effective or less safe, although not supported by reliable scientific evidence, cannot, in the light of the level of scientific knowledge available at the time of the events in question, be indisputably excluded either?

      (1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67).


title: Case F-13/09: Action brought on 19 February 2009 — Peláez Jimeno v Parliament

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/40

         Action brought on 19 February 2009 — Peláez Jimeno v Parliament
   (Case F-13/09)
   2009/C 90/65
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Josefina Peláez Jimeno (Relegem — Asse, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the appointing authority’s decision to classify the applicant, as a probationary official, at a grade and step lower than that which she occupied as a member of the temporary staff.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 8 February 2008 by which the applicant was classified in the new ‘AST’ category, grade 1, step 5, as a probationary official, confirmed by the decision rejecting the complaint of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 12 November 2008;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 24 September 1998 in Case C-111/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): EvoBus Austria GmbH v. Niederösterreichische Verkehrsorganisations GmbH (Növog) (Public procurement in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors - Effect of a directive which has not been transposed)

text:
7.11.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 340/5
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                court must, in particular, verify whether that right to bring
                       (Sixth Chamber)                              review proceedings can be exercised before the same
                                                                    bodies as those established to hear applications for review
                    of 24 September 1998                            concerning the award of public supply contracts and
                                                                    public works contracts. If the provisions of domestic law
in Case C-111/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from           are incapable of being interpreted in conformity with
the Bundesvergabeamt): EvoBus Austria GmbH v.                       Directive 92/13/EEC, the persons concerned may, in
    Niederösterreichische Verkehrsorganisations GmbH                accordance with the appropriate procedures under
                          (Növog) (1)                               domestic law, claim compensation for damage suffered as
(Public procurement in the water, energy, transport and             a result of the failure to transpose the directive within the
telecommunications sectors Ð Effect of a directive which            prescribed time-limit.
                  has not been transposed)
                                                                    (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
                        (98/C 340/08)
               (Language of the case: German)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of 29 September 1998
In Case C-111/97: reference to the Court under Article 177          in   Case C-191/95: Commission of the European
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesvergabeamt (Federal                       Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (1)
Procurement Office) (Austria), for a preliminary ruling             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
in the proceedings pending before that court between                Reasoned opinion Ð Principle of collegiality Ð Company
EvoBus Austria GmbH and Niederösterreichische                       law Ð Directives 68/151/EEC and 78/660/EEC Ð
Verkehrsorganisations GmbH (Növog) Ð on the                             Annual accounts Ð Penalties for failure to disclose)
interpretation of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of
25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and                                     (98/C 340/09)
administrative provisions relating to the application of
Community rules on the procurement procedures of
entities operating in the water, energy, transport and                            (Language of the case: German)
telecommunications sectors (OJ L 76 of 23.3.1992, p. 14)
Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H.
Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini,                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and K. M.                        published in the European Court Reports)
Ioannou, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. A.
Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 24 September 1998, in which it has ruled:             In Case C-191/95: Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities (Agent: Jürgen Grunwald) v Federal
                                                                    Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Alfred
Article 1(1) to (3), Article 2(1), (7) to (9) and the               Dittrich, assisted by Hans-Jürgen Rabe, Rechtsanwalt) Ð
other provisions of Council Directive 92/13/EEC of                  application for a declaration that, by failing to provide for
25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and             appropriate penalties in cases where companies limited by
administrative provisions relating to the application of            shares fail to disclose their annual accounts, as prescribed
Community rules on the procurement procedures of                    in particular by the First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of
entities operating in the water, energy, transport and              9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for
telecommunications sectors cannot be interpreted as                 the protection of the interests of members and others, are
meaning that, where the directive has not been transposed           required by Member States of companies within the
by the end of the period prescribed for that purpose, the           meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the
review bodies of the Member States having competence in             Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent
relation to procedures for the award of public works                throughout the Community (OJ L 65 of 14.3.1968, p. 8),
contracts and public supply contracts may also hear                 and the Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July
applications for review relating to procedures for the              1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the
award of public contracts in the water, energy, transport           annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ L 222
and telecommunications sectors. However, in order to                of 14.8.1978, p. 11), the Federal Republic of Germany has
observe the requirement that domestic law be interpreted            failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
in conformity with Directive 92/13/EEC and the                      those directives Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
requirement that the rights of individuals be protected             Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm
effectively, the national court must determine whether the          (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
relevant provisions of its domestic law allow recognition           Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
of a right for individuals to bring review proceedings in           P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.
relation to awards of public contracts in the water, energy,        Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón and K. M.
transport and telecommunications sectors. The national              Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. A.


title: Case T-469/15: Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Bena Properties v Council

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/34

         Order of the General Court of 14 September 2016 — Bena Properties v Council
   (Case T-469/15) (1)

   (2016/C 410/55)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case C-432/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 2 August 2016 — Carolina Minayo Luque v Quitxalla Stars, S.L., and Fondo de Garantía Salarial

text:
               7.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 410/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 2 August 2016 — Carolina Minayo Luque v Quitxalla Stars, S.L., and Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   (Case C-432/16)
   (2016/C 410/02)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Carolina Minayo Luque

      Defendants: Quitxalla Stars, S.L., and Fondo de Garantía Salarial

      Questions referred

               1.

               On a proper construction of Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85/EEC, (1) must the concept of ‘exceptional cases not connected with their condition which are permitted under national legislation and/or practice’, constituting an exception to the prohibition of dismissing pregnant workers, be understood to have been complied with by merely providing proof of the objective economic, technical, organisational or productive reasons, as defined in Article 51(1) of the Workers’ Statute, referred to in Article 52(c) of that statute?

               2.

               In the event of an objective individual dismissal for economic, technical, organisational or productive reasons, is there a requirement, in order to decide whether exceptional cases exist that justify the dismissal of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, in accordance with Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85/EEC, that the worker affected cannot be reassigned to another work post, or that there are no other workers in similar posts who may be affected, or is it sufficient that proof should be given of economic, technical and productive reasons that affect her work post?

               3.

               Is legislation, such as the Spanish legislation transposing the prohibition on the dismissal of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding by providing a guarantee by virtue of which, failing any proof of reasons justifying her dismissal, the dismissal is declared void (reparative protection), but does not lay down a prohibition of dismissal (preventive protection), compatible with Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85/EEC, which lays down that prohibition?

               4.

               Is national legislation, such as the Spanish legislation, which does not provide for priority for retention in the undertaking, in the event of objective individual dismissal for economic, technical, organisational or productive reasons, for pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, compatible with Article 10(1) of Directive 92/85/EEC?

               5.

               For the purposes of Article 10(2) of Directive 92/85/EEC, is national legislation compatible with this provision if it treats as sufficient a letter of dismissal, like that in the present proceedings, which makes no reference whatsoever to the existence of any exceptional grounds, nor to the criteria which justify selecting the worker, notwithstanding her state of pregnancy?

      (1)  Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1).


title: Case C-320/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille (Regional Court, Lille) (France) lodged on 6 June 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Uber France SAS

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Lille (Regional Court, Lille) (France) lodged on 6 June 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Uber France SAS
   (Case C-320/16)
   (2016/C 296/29)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Lille

      Party to the main proceedings

   Uber France SAS

      Question referred

   Does Article L.3124-13 of the Code des transports, inserted by Law No 2014-1104 of 1 October 2014 on taxis and private hire vehicles, constitute a new technical regulation that is not implicit and that relates to one or more information society services, within the meaning of Directive 98/34/EC of 22 June 1998 (1), such that, pursuant to Article 8 of that directive, it had to be notified in advance to the European Commission, or does it fall within the scope of Directive 2006/123/EC (2) of 12 December 2006 on services, Article 2(d) of which excludes transport?
   In the event that that question is answered in the affirmative, does a failure to satisfy the notification requirement laid down in Article 8 of the directive mean that Article L.3124-13 of the Code des transports is unenforceable against individuals?

      (1)  Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).

      (2)  Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36)


title: Case T-492/11: Action brought on 21 September 2011 — ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products v OHIM (Representation of a tampon)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/20

         Action brought on 21 September 2011 — ‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products v OHIM (Representation of a tampon)
   (Case T-492/11)
   2011/C 355/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant:‘Rauscher’ Consumer Products GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by M. Stütz, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 July 2011 in Case R 2168/2010-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark, representing a tampon, for goods in Classes 3 and 5

      Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the Community trade mark concerned has distinctive character


title: Case T-486/14: Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Stavytskyi v Council

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/45

         Action brought on 25 June 2014 — Stavytskyi v Council
   (Case T-486/14)
   2014/C 303/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Edward Stavytskyi (Belgium) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, D. Rovetta and M. Gambardella, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014, implementing Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 111, p. 91), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 381/2014 of 14 April 2014, implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 111, p. 33), in so far as the contested acts include the applicant in the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;

               —

               Order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law concerning infringement of an essential procedural requirement, as well as infringement of the Treaties and of rules of law relating to their application: violation of the right of hearing, violation of the obligation to give notice, insufficient statement of grounds, violation of the right of defence, incorrect legal basis, and manifest error of assessment.
   The applicant finds that the Council failed to perform a hearing of the applicant, and that no contrary indications would justify this. Furthermore, the Council failed to notify the Contested Acts to the applicant, and in any case these acts contained an insufficient statement of reasons. Requests for access to information and documents have not been replied to by the Council. By these omissions, the Council violated the right of defence of the applicant, who was denied the possibility of effectively arguing against the findings of the Council, as these findings were withheld from the applicant. Further, the measures taken by the Council do not constitute foreign policy measures, but instead constitute international cooperation in criminal proceedings, which accordingly have been adopted on an incorrect legal basis. Finally, the measures taken by the Council were adopted without proper consideration of relevant facts as well as the case law from the European Court of Human Rights pertaining to criminal procedures in Ukraine, especially in relation to the prosecution of former government officers.


title: Case C-200/15: Action brought on 29 April 2015 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/25

         Action brought on 29 April 2015 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-200/15)
   (2015/C 205/33)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wasmeier, P. Guerra and A. Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by applying, for the purpose of determining the taxable amount of second-hand vehicles brought into Portuguese territory from another Member State, a system for the calculation of the depreciation of vehicles which does not take account of the actual value of the vehicle and, in particular, does not take account of the depreciation in the vehicle’s value during its first year of use, or any other depreciation in the case of vehicles more than five years old, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

               —

               order Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission is of the view that Article 11 of Portuguese Code of Taxes on Vehicles is discriminatory, in so far as concerns motor vehicles allowed into Portugal, that is second-hand vehicles bearing a permanent number-plate issued by another Member State which are placed on the Portuguese market. Unlike second-hand vehicles which are, from the outset, on the Portuguese market, vehicles allowed into Portugal from other Member States are taxed at such a rate that does not adequately reflect the depreciation in value. In particular, the tax rate is reduced only after one year of use and, after five years of use, the reduction cannot exceed 52 %.