title: Case C-590/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2010 — Wolfgang Köppl v Freistaat Bayern

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 15 December 2010 — Wolfgang Köppl v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-590/10)
   2011/C 95/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Wolfgang Köppl

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 1(2) and Article 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1) — with particular regard to Article 2(1) and Article 3(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State (the ‘host Member State’) is entitled not to recognise a Category B driving licence which another Member State (‘the issuing Member State’) has issued to a person on whom the host Member State has imposed prior measures within the meaning of Article 8(2) of Directive 91/439/EEC and which driving licence is on the face of the document itself in breach of the residence requirement of Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 91/439/EEC, if that person has subsequently obtained in the issuing Member State a Category C driving licence which is not on the face of that driving licence in breach of the residence requirement?

               2.

               If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, can the host Member State refuse to recognise the Category C driving licence issued to that person?

      (1)  Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1).


title: Case C-514/07 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2007 by the Kingdom of Sweden to the Court of Justice against the judgment delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/04: Association de la presse internationale a.s.b.l. (API) v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/32

         Appeal brought on 22 November 2007 by the Kingdom of Sweden to the Court of Justice against the judgment delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/04: Association de la presse internationale a.s.b.l. (API) v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-514/07 P)
   (2008/C 51/54)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, Legal Advisers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Association de la presse internationale a.s.b.l. (API) by the European Commission
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 in Case T-36/04;

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 20 November 2003 in its entirety, in accordance with the forms of order sought by API before the Court of First Instance, and thus also in respect of the refused access to the pleadings submitted by the Commission in Case T-209/01 Honeywell v Commission, Case T-210/01 General Electric v Commission and Case C-203/03 Commission v Austria, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance incorrectly applied Community law by failing to annul the Commission's decision in its entirety.

               2.

               On the one hand, the Court of First Instance found that, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (1), the institutions are obliged to assess whether disclosure would specifically and in a concrete manner harm an interest protected by an exception. Only if that is the case can an exception form the basis of a refusal to disclose a document. That examination must be made in respect of each individual document. The applicant supports that conclusion.

               3.

               Nevertheless, on the other hand, the Court of First Instance concluded that in precisely that case the Commission was not obliged to carry out such an examination, by reference to the fact that there is a general requirement of confidentiality for documents lodged in pending cases until the oral procedure has taken place in the case. That general requirement for confidentiality is based in part on the right to a fair hearing before an impartial tribunal, in part on the fact that the Commission is to be able to uphold its interests as a party to the case. In that regard, the Court of First Instance found that the Commission did not make an incorrect assessment when it refused access to the documents lodged.

               4.

               In the view of the applicant the later ruling is incompatible with the obligation to examine the question of disclosure by reference to the contents of the specific document. By its judgment, the Court of First Instance thus incorrectly applied Community law.

      (1)  OJ L 145, p. 43.


title: Case T-345/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Provision of services for the development and provision of services in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS) — Rejection of a tender — Principles of equal treatment as between tenderers and transparency)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 March 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-345/03) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Provision of services for the development and provision of services in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS) - Rejection of a tender - Principles of equal treatment as between tenderers and transparency)
   (2008/C 107/36)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented: initially by S. Pappas and subsequently by N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly and L. Parpala, agents)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of the decision to award the contract which is the subject of the Commission's call for tenders ENTR/02/055 — CORDIS Lot 2 for the development and provision of services for in support of the Community Research and Development Service (CORDIS)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of 16 July 2003 to award the contract which is the subject of the call for tenders ENTR/02/55 — CORDIS Lot 2.

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.


               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/22

         Removal from the register of Case C-548/03 (1)

   (2005/C 106/50)

      (Language of the case: French)

   By order of 16 December 2004, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-548/03: European Parliament v Council of the European Union supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 47 of 21.02.2004.


title: Case T-378/17: Action brought on 8 June 2017 — La Zaragozana v EUIPO — Heineken Italia (CERVISIA)

text:
               7.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/39

         Action brought on 8 June 2017 — La Zaragozana v EUIPO — Heineken Italia (CERVISIA)
   (Case T-378/17)
   (2017/C 256/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: La Zaragozana, SA (Zaragoza, Spain) (represented by: L. Broschat García, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heineken Italia SpA (Pollein, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘CERVISIA’ — Application for registration No 13 395 397

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2017 in Case R 1241/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-179/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 15 May 2009 — Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Alix Walsh v Région wallonne

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 15 May 2009 — Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Alix Walsh v Région wallonne
   (Case C-179/09)
   2009/C 180/53
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Le Poumon vert de la Hulpe ASBL, Les amis de la Forêt de Soignes ASBL, Jacques Solvay de la Hulpe, Marie-Noëlle Solvay, Alix Walsh

      Defendant: Région wallonne

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (1) be interpreted as excluding from its application legislation — such as the Decree of the Walloon Region on certain consents for which there are overriding reasons in the general interest of 17 July 2008 — which merely states that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’ for the grant of town planning consents, environmental consents and combined town planning and environmental consents relating to the acts and works listed therein and which ‘ratifies’ consents in respect of which it is stated that ‘overriding reasons in the general interest have been established’?

               2.

                           (a)

                           Do Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2) and Directive 2003/35/EC, (3) preclude a legal regime in which the right to implement a project subject to an environmental impact assessment is conferred by a legislative act against which no review procedure is available before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law which makes it possible to challenge, both in terms of the substance and the procedure followed, the decision granting the right to implement the project?

                           (b)

                           Must Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, (4) be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality, in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment, of decisions, acts or omissions subject to the provisions of Article 6?

                           (c)

                           In the light of the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters, concluded on 25 June 1998 and approved by the European Community by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005, must Article 10a of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC, be interpreted as requiring the Member States to provide for the possibility of seeking a review before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law in order to be able to challenge the legality of decisions, acts or omissions in relation to any issue of substance or procedure relating to the substantive or procedural rules governing the authorisation of projects subject to an impact assessment?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).

      (2)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).

      (3)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC — Statement by the Commission (OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17).

      (4)  Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters (OJ 2005 L 124, p. 1).


title: Case C-232/08: Action brought on 29 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/25

         Action brought on 29 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-232/08)
   (2008/C 209/37)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. van Rijn and K. Banks, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by allowing fishing vessels to have a higher engine power than permitted under Article 29(2) of Regulation (EC) No 850/98 (1), has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 2371 (2) and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 (3);

               —

               order Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission considers that the Netherlands Government has failed to fulfil its obligations, as it has consciously allows infringements of the rule regarding the maximum engine power with which fishing may be carried out in the ‘plaice box’.
   First, it is apparent from the information provided by the Netherlands Government that it permits Netherlands ‘Eurokotters’ participating in the private arrangement to satisfy the maximum permitted engine power of 300 hp only with effect from 1 May 2009. Second, it is apparent from this information that when monitoring compliance with this rule a margin of tolerance of 12,5 % is applied systematically and therefore penalties are not imposed on infringements of the maximum permitted engine power within that margin.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms (OJ 1998 L 125, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1).


title: Case C-82/08: Order of the President of the Court of 10 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-82/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/65)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case T-646/11: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014  — Ipatau v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Belarus — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Restrictions on the entry into and transit through the European Union — Action for annulment — Time-limit for instituting proceedings — Admissibility — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Error of assessment)

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 — Ipatau v Council
   (Case T-646/11) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Belarus - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Restrictions on the entry into and transit through the European Union - Action for annulment - Time-limit for instituting proceedings - Admissibility - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Error of assessment))
   2014/C 388/09
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vadzim Ipatau (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council Decision 2011/666/CFSP of 10 October 2011 amending Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2011 L 265, p. 17), in so far as it concerns the applicant, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1000/2011 of 10 October 2011 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 265, p. 8) in so far as it concerns the applicant, the Council decision of 14 November 2011 rejecting the applicant’s request to have his name removed from Council Decision 2011/69/CFSP of 31 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 40) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 84/2011 of 31 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus (OJ 2011 L 28, p. 17), and annulment of Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP of 15 October 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 285, p. 1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1017/2012 of 6 November 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 307, p. 7), in so far they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Vadzim Ipatau to bear, in addition to his own costs, the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 November 2003 in Case C-356/01: Republic of Austria v Commission of the European Communities (System of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting through Austria — Refusal by the Commission to reduce the number of ecopoints for 2001 — Legality)

text:
C 7/12                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                             10.1.2004
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      available to it by the contracting authority, even where the second
                                                                             contractor has expressed the intention not to take on the employees of
                                                                             the first contractor.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
                       of 20 November 2003
in Case C-340/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Carlito Abler and Others
v Sodexho MM Catering Gesellschaft mbH, intervener                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      Sanrest Großküchen Betriebsgesellschaft mbH (1)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(Social policy — Approximation of laws — Transfers of
undertakings — Safeguarding of workers’ rights — Direc-                                              of 20 November 2003
     tive 77/187/EEC — Scope — Definition of transfer)
                                                                             in Case C-356/01: Republic of Austria v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                            (2004/C 7/18)
                                                                             (System of ecopoints for heavy goods vehicles transiting
                                                                             through Austria — Refusal by the Commission to reduce the
                   (Language of the case: German)                                        number of ecopoints for 2001 — Legality)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/19)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-340/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  In Case C-356/01, Republic of Austria (Agent: H. Dossi) v
Carlito Abler and Others and Sodexho MM Catering Gesell-                     Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
schaft mbH, intervener Sanrest Großküchen Betriebsgesell-                    C. Schmidt and M. Wolfcarius), supported by Federal Republic
schaft mbH, on the interpretation of Council Directive 77/                   of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing, acting as Agent, assisted
187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the                      by J. Sedemund, Rechtsanwalt): Application for annulment of
laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of                    the Commission’s decision of 25 July 2001 refusing to submit
employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,                 a draft regulation reducing the number of ecopoints for 2001
businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1977 L 61, p. 26), the                 and, in the alternative, of the Commission’s decision of the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, acting as                    same date to distribute all the remaining ecopoints for 2001,
President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, J.-                    the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, acting
P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges;               for the President of the Sixth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues
L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Admin-                (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 Novem-               Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
ber 2003, in which it has ruled:                                             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                             20 November 2003, in which it:
Article 1 of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977                1.     Dismisses the application.
on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of           2.     Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be interpreted as
applying to a situation in which a contracting authority which had           3.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
awarded the contract for the management of the catering services in a
hospital to one contractor terminates that contract and concludes a
contract for the supply of the same services with a second contractor,       (1) OJ C 317 of 10.10.2001.
where the second contractor uses substantial parts of the tangible
assets previously used by the first contractor and subsequently made


title: Action brought on 29 March 1996 by Acme Industry Co., Ltd against the Council of the European Union (Case T-48/96)

text:
 No C 180/32           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 6 . 96
 Action brought on 28 March 1996 by Syndicat                         Action brought on 29 March 1996 by Acme Industry Co.,
 Départemental de Défense du Droit des Agriculteurs                        Ltd against the Council of the European Union
 ( SDDDA ) against Commission of the European                                                ( Case T-48/96 )
                          Communities
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/82 )
                         Case T-47/96 )
                         ( 96/C 180/81 )                                            (Language of the case: English)
                (Language of the case: Frencb)                       An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities on 29 March 1996 by Acme Industry Co .,
 An action against the Commission of the European                    Ltd, represented by Jacques H. J. Bourgeois, of the Brussels
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Bar, Baker & McKenzie, with an address for service
 Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1996               at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolters, 11 rue Goethe,
 by the Syndicat Départemental de Défense du Droit des               Luxembourg.
Agriculteurs ( SDDDA ), whose registered office is at
 Beaucaire , France , represented by Olivier Girard, of the          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Nîmes Bar .
                                                                     — annul Regulation ( EC ) No 5/96 in so far as it affects
                                                                         Acme Industry Company Ltd,
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     — order the Council to pay the costs .
— declare that the European Commission has failed to act
     by not responding clearly to the problem of the                 Pleas in law and main arguments:
     applicability of Directives 92/49/EEC and 92/96/EEC
     with regard to the monopoly of the French statutory             The applicant, a private company 65 % of which is held by
     social security scheme in the fields of non-life insurance      the Japanese holding company Nisshin Industry Co ., Ltd,
     and life assurance;                                             and whose only activity relates to the production of
                                                                     microwave ovens, challenges Council Regulation No 5/96 ,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                            imposing definitive antidumping duties on imports of
                                                                     microwave ovens originating in the People's Republic of
                                                                     China, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia and Thailand and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                      collecting definitively provisional duties .
                                                                     The application is based on the following grounds :
The applicant alleges that the Commission has failed to act
on a complaint which it lodged against the French State for         — infringement of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 on
breach of the provisions of Directives 92/49/EEC and                     protection against dumped or subsidized imports from
92/96/EEC . Those two Directives lay down the principle                  countries not members of the EC ( basic Regulation ),
that all monopolies are to be abolished in the fields of                 because    of the    refusal   of the   Council     and     the
non-life insurance and life assurance and enable any insurer             Commission to calculate the constructed value by
established in the Community to cover any type of risk .                 reference to the sales made by the exporter in the same
                                                                         business sector in the country of export (Japan ),
It claims that the French authorities have systematically
refused to apply those two directives and, in order to              — infringement of the general principle of non-dis
maintain the monopoly of the statutory scheme , have                     crimination by applying the amounts for SG&A costs
enacted Law No 95/116 of 4 February 1 995 containing                     and profits of the Korean exporter, who has a
miscellaneous social security provisions, Article 43 of which            substantially different commercial structure, in order to
lays down penalties of imprisonment and fine for any person              calculate the constructed normal value of ACME
who ' incites those covered by the legislation to refuse (. . .)         products,
to join a social security organization '. The applicant
concludes that France wishes to maintain the monopoly               — the Council should have applied the limitation provided
system intact.                                                           in Article 2.6 of Regulation ( EC ) No 3283/94, for the
                                                                         purpose of determining the amounts of profit to be
                                                                         included in the calculation of the constructed normal
According to the applicant, the Commission's only response               value . Although according to its express wording the
to its complaint was to state that the directives in question            Regulation was not yet applicable, it is a general
do not concern statutory social security schemes, and it used            principle of equity to apply a provision which is
a reference for a preliminary ruling pending before the                  technically not yet in force in so far as it is less onerous
Court of Justice ( Case C-238/94 ) as a pretext for eluding its          for the individual concerned than the previous text.
obligation to state reasons .                                            Alternatively, the Council should have interpreted
                                                                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 2423/88 in the light of
                                                                         Article 2.2.2 of the Uruquay Round Anti-Dumping
                                                                         Code,
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 6 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 180/33
— the contested regulation is not adequately reasoned in so            Second plea:
     far as the Council did not consider the applicant's
     argument based on the cooperating Thai producer's                 The Commission wrongly assumed that the criteria for
     request that the normal value for Thailand be                     remission of import duties under Article 13 of the remission
     established on the basis of the sales made by that                regulation were not fulfilled. In monitoring and supervising
     producer's related company on the Japanese market,                imports falling within the Hilton quota, the Commission
                                                                       committed serious errors, and it was solely as a result of
— infringement of the basic Regulation, by making a                    those errors that it was possible for imports to be effected, in
     comparison between the normal value and the export                the quantities now determined and over a period of two
     price which infringes Article 2.9.a(ii ) of that                  years, on the basis of the submission of falsified certificates
     Regulation.                                                       of authenticity. In the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                       misjudged the extend of its misconduct and the legal
                                                                       consequences arising therefrom.
                                                                       Third plea:
Action brought on 12 April 1996 by Primex Produkte
Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH and                      The Commission breached essential rules of procedure, by
Interporc Im- und Export GmbH against the Commission of                denying Germany's representative at the meeting of experts
                  the European Communities                             of the Member States, held on 4 December 1995 , any
                                                                       opportunity to submit oral comments .
                          ( Case T-50/96 )
                            ( 96/C 180/83 )                            Fourth plea:
               (Language of the case: German)                          The Commission breached the applicants' right to a fair
                                                                       hearing, since it did not grant them any direct hearing in
An action against the Commission of the European                       accordance with the law . The Commission was under an
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      obligation to do so, despite the fact that the procedural rules
Instance of the European Communities on 12 April 1996 by               laid down by the Regulation implementing the Community
Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, of                        Customs Code did not provide for direct participation by
Hamburg ( Federal Republic of Germany), Gebr. Kruse                    the applicants in the proceedings before the Commission .
GmbH, of Hamburg ( Federal Republic of Germany ), and
Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, of Hamburg ( Federal                    Fifth plea:
Republic of Germany ), represented by Georg M. Berrisch,
Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with an address for service in                 Lastly, the contested decision infringes Article 190 of the EC
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles of Messrs                     Treaty, since it is inadequately reasoned .
Arendt & Medernach, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
The applicants claim that the Court should :
— annul the decision of the Commission of 26 January
     1996 in case REM 8/95 , 11 /95 and 12/95 ( COM Doc .              Action brought on 12 April 1996 by Miwon Co., Ltd
     C( 96 ) 180 final ), addressed to the Federal Republic of             against the Council of the European Communities
     Germany, in so far as it concerns the applicants,                                         ( Case T-51/96 )
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                         96/C 180/84 )
Pleas in law and man agruments:                                                       (Language of the case: English)
By the contested decision, the Commission decided that                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
import duties are not to be remitted in respect of                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
applications made by the applicants and submitted by                   Communities on 12 April 1 996 by Miwon Co . Ltd,
Germany pursuant to Article 13 of Council Regulation                   represented by Jean-François Bellis, of Van Bael & Bellis,
( EEC ) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 . Those applications                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
related to the import of high-grade beef, known as 'Hilton             of Loesch & Wolters, 11 rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
quality' beef, from Argentina, in respect of which falsified
certificates of authenticity, purporting to be issued by the
Argentine authorities, had been submitted to the customs               The applicant claims that the Court should:
authorities .
                                                                       — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 81/96 of 19 January
First plea:                                                                1996 imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on
                                                                           imports of monosodium glutamate originating, inter
The decision was founded on the wrong legal basis . The                    alia, in the Republic of Korea in so far as it imposes a
correct legal basis was Article 239 of the Community                       definitive anti-dumping duty on the applicant and orders
Customs Code and not Article 13 of the Regulation relating                 the collection of provisional anti-dumping duties with
to remission .                                                             respect to products exported by the applicant; and


title: Case T-309/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 March 2008 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 3 March 2008 — Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-309/07) (1)

   (2008/C 107/74)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Case C-131/16: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Archus sp. z o.o., Gama Jacek Lipik v Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004/17/EC — Principles of awarding contracts — Article 10 — Principle of equal treatment of tenderers — Requirement for contracting authorities to request tenderers to amend or supplement their tender — Right of the contracting authority to retain the bank guarantee in the event of refusal — Directive 92/13/EEC — Article 1(3) — Review procedures — Decision to award a public contract — Exclusion of a tenderer — Actions for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/13

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza — Poland) — Archus sp. z o.o., Gama Jacek Lipik v Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.
   (Case C-131/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 2004/17/EC - Principles of awarding contracts - Article 10 - Principle of equal treatment of tenderers - Requirement for contracting authorities to request tenderers to amend or supplement their tender - Right of the contracting authority to retain the bank guarantee in the event of refusal - Directive 92/13/EEC - Article 1(3) - Review procedures - Decision to award a public contract - Exclusion of a tenderer - Actions for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings))
   (2017/C 239/17)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Archus sp. z o.o., Gama Jacek Lipik

      Defendant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.

      Intervener: Digital-Center sp. z o.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The principle of equal treatment of economic operators set out in Article 10 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors must be interpreted as precluding, in a public procurement procedure, the contracting authority from inviting a tenderer to submit declarations or documents whose communication was required by the tender specification and which have not been submitted within the time limit given for the submission of tenders. On the other hand, that article does not preclude the contracting authority from inviting a tenderer to clarify a tender or to correct an obvious clerical error in that tender, on condition, however, that such an invitation is sent to all tenderers in the same situation, that all tenderers are treated equally and fairly, and that that clarification or correction may not be equated with the submission of a new tender, which is for the referring court to determine.

               2.

               Council Directive 92/13/EEC of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which, in a public procurement procedure two tenders have been submitted and the contracting authority has adopted two simultaneous decisions rejecting the offer of one tenderer and awarding the contract to the other, the unsuccessful tenderer who brings an action against those two decisions must be able to request the exclusion of the tender of the successful tenderer, so that the concept of ‘a particular contract’ within the meaning of Article 1(3) of Directive 92/13, as amended by Directive 2007/66, may, where appropriate, apply to the possible initiation of a new public procurement procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 13.6.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  9 February 2006  in Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon in Sfakianakis AEVE v Elliniko Dimosio (Association Agreement EEC-Hungary — Obligation of mutual assistance between customs authorities — Post-clearance recovery of import duties following revocation in the State of export of the movement)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 9 February 2006
   in Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon in Sfakianakis AEVE v Elliniko Dimosio (1)

   (Association Agreement EEC-Hungary - Obligation of mutual assistance between customs authorities - Post-clearance recovery of import duties following revocation in the State of export of the movement)
   (2006/C 86/08)
   Language of the case: Greek
   In Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon (Greece), made by decision of 30 September 2003, received at the Court on 26 January 2004, in the proceedings between Sfakianakis AEVE and Elliniko Dimosio — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it ruled:

               1.

               Articles 31(2) and 32 of Protocol 4 to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, as amended by Decision No 3/96 of the Association Council between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, of 28 December 1996, are to be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the State of import are bound to take account of judicial decisions delivered in the State of export on actions brought against the results of verification of the validity of goods movement certificates conducted by the customs authorities of the State of export, once they have been informed of the existence of those actions and the content of those decisions, regardless of whether the verification of the validity of the movement certificates was carried out at the request of the customs authorities of the State of import.

               2.

               The effectiveness of the abolition of the imposition of customs duties under the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, concluded and approved by the decision of the Council and the Commission of 13 December 1993, precludes administrative decisions imposing the payment of customs duties, taxes and penalties taken by the customs authorities of the State of import before the definitive result of actions brought against the findings of the subsequent verification have been communicated to them, when the decisions of the authorities of the State of export which initially issued the EUR.1 certificates have not been revoked or annulled.

               3.

               The answer to the first three questions is not affected by the fact that neither the Greek customs authorities nor the Hungarian customs authorities sought convocation of the Association Committee pursuant to Article 33 of Protocol No 4, as amended by Decision 3/96.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 20.03.2004.

      OJ C 85, 03.04.2004.


title: Case T-74/09: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2010 — France v Commission

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/32

         Order of the General Court of 17 May 2010 — France v Commission
   (Case T-74/09) (1)

   2010/C 195/52

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.05.2009.


title: Case F-67/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge Chamber) of 25 June 2015 — Mikulik v Council (Civil Service — Officials — Probationary period — Extension of probationary period — Dismissal at the end of the probationary period — Probation carried out under irregular conditions)

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/24

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge Chamber) of 25 June 2015 — Mikulik v Council
   (Case F-67/14) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Officials - Probationary period - Extension of probationary period - Dismissal at the end of the probationary period - Probation carried out under irregular conditions))
   (2015/C 254/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Filip Mikulik (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant at the end of his probationary period and for compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Mikulik to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 380, 27.10.2014, p. 26.


title: Case C-494/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Heintz van Landewijck SARL v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Directive 92/12/EEC — Excise duty — Tax stamps — Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2 and 27 — Disappearance of excise stamps)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Heintz van Landewijck SARL v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-494/04) (1)

   (Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Directive 92/12/EEC - Excise duty - Tax stamps - Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2 and 27 - Disappearance of excise stamps)
   (2006/C 212/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heintz van Landewijck SARL

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 27(1) and (5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Ninth Directive 78/583/EEC (OJ 1978 L 194, p. 16) — Interpretation of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Compatibility of national law with Community law — Tax labels for tobacco products — Disappearance before use
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Neither Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products nor the principle of proportionality preclude Member States from adopting legislation which does not provide for reimbursement of the amount of excise duty paid, where the excise stamps disappeared before having been affixed to the tobacco products, if that disappearance is not attributable to force majeure or to an accident and if it is not established that the stamps have been destroyed or rendered permanently unusable, which thereby places the financial responsibility for the loss of tax stamps on the purchaser.

               2.

               Article 27(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that failure to observe the period for notification does not constitute a material procedural defect capable of rendering inapplicable a derogating measure which was notified late.

               3.

               Article 27(1) and (5) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that a derogating scheme for collecting VAT by means of tax stamps, such as that established by Article 28 of the Law on turnover tax of 28 June 1968 (Wet op de omzetbelasting), is compatible with the requirements laid down by the provisions of the directive and does not exceed what is necessary for the simplification of the procedure for charging the tax.

               4.

               The absence of an obligation to reimburse amounts paid for the purchase of excise stamps which correspond to VAT, where those stamps disappeared before having been affixed to the tobacco products, if that disappearance is not attributable to force majeure or to an accident and if it is not established that the stamps have been destroyed or rendered permanently unusable, is not incompatible with Sixth Directive 77/388 and, in particular, with Article 27(1) and (5) thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 19.02.2005.


title: Case C-296/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Montpellier (France) lodged on 3 July 2008 — Ministère public v Ignacio Pédro Santesteban Goicoechea

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/34

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Montpellier (France) lodged on 3 July 2008 — Ministère public v Ignacio Pédro Santesteban Goicoechea
   (Case C-296/08)
   (2008/C 223/54)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Montpellier
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministère public

      Defendant: Ignacio Pédro Santesteban Goicoechea
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the failure of a Member State (in this case Spain) to give notification under Article 31(2) of the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (1) of its intention to continue to apply bilateral or multilateral agreements preclude, by reason of the word ‘replace’ in Article 31 of that Framework Decision, that Member State from using with another Member State (in this case France), which has made a statement under Article 32 of the Framework Decision, procedures other than that of the European arrest warrant?

               2.

               If the answer to the above question is in the negative, do the provisos made by the executing Member State permit that State to apply a Convention of 27 September 1996, thus prior to 1 January 2004, but which entered into force in that executing State after that date of 1 January 2004 referred to in Article 32 of the Framework Decision?

      (1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case C-470/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 14 September 2011 — SIA Garkalns v Rīgas dome

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 14 September 2011 — SIA ‘Garkalns’ v Rīgas dome
   (Case C-470/11)
   2011/C 331/23
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SIA ‘Garkalns’

      Respondent: Rīgas dome

      Question referred

   Must Article 49 EC and the related obligation of transparency be interpreted as meaning that the use, in a law that has been enacted publicly and in advance, of an imprecise legal concept such as ‘substantial impairment of the interests of the State and of the residents of the administrative area concerned’ — a concept which has to be defined in each individual case in which it applies with the help of interpretative guidelines but which at the same time allows a degree of flexibility in the assessment of restrictions on the freedom to provide services — is compatible with the permissible restrictions on that freedom?


title: Case T-194/12: Action brought on 30 April 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Bauer Consumer Media (GOLF WORLD)

text:
               14.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/8

         Action brought on 30 April 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Bauer Consumer Media (GOLF WORLD)
   (Case T-194/12)
   2012/C 209/13
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: R. Hacon, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bauer Consumer Media Ltd (Peterborough, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 February 2012 in case R 239/2011-1;

               —

               Refuse the application in suit for all goods and services for which it was published for opposition;

               —

               Alternatively, the evidence of use be deemed sufficient and the opposition be remitted to the Opposition Division to determine the issue of the conflict between the marks in question; and

               —

               Award to the opponent its costs in the opposition proceedings, the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and in this appeal and that the appeal fees be refunded.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 7070147

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux trade mark registration No 465586 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Danish trade mark registration No 541/1991 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; French trade mark registration No 1551025 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Greek trade mark registration No 96430 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Italian trade mark registration No 575282 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Spanish trade mark registration No 1308477 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Swedish trade mark registration No 229611 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Portuguese trade mark registration No 259281 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16; Irish trade mark registration No 113474 of the word mark ‘GOLF WORLD’, for goods in class 16

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Appeal brought on 18 February 1997 by Kruidvat BVBA against the judgment delivered on 12 December 1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-87/92 between Kruidvat BVBA and Commission of the European Communities, supported by Parfums Givenchy SA, Comité de liaison des syndicats européens de l'industrie de la parfumerie et des cosmétiques and Fédération européenne des parfumeurs détaillants (Case C-70/97 P)

text:
No C 131 /4            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 4 . 97
Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Alberto Dal Ferro, of         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                 The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            recovery of a financial contribution granted by the
                                                                     applicant to the defendant to enable the latter to complete
The applicant claims that the Court should:                          an integrated private solid waste collection and recycling
                                                                     system . The Commission decided to terminate the
— order Cascina Laura and Gariboldi jointly and                      contract, governed by Italian law, on the ground that the
     severally to refund ECU 479 134 together with interest          defendant failed to perform its obligations.
     as from the payment of that sum until the date on
     which it is repaid, by monthly instalments of ECU
     1 742 as from 31 July 1990 and of ECU 2 464 as from
     20 April 1991 — that is to say, by total monthly
     instalments of ECU 4 206 as from 20 April 1991 —
     until the date of actual settlement,                            Appeal brought on 18 February 1997 by Kruidvat BVBA
                                                                     against the judgment delivered on 12 December 1996 by
— order Cascina Laura and Gariboldi jointly and                      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
     severally to pay damages to the Commission in the               in    Case    T-87/92       between     Kruidvat    BVBA       and
     amount of ECU 100 000 or such sum as the Court                  Commission of the European Communities, supported by
     may deem to be appropriate,                                     Parfums Givenchy SA, Comité de liaison des syndicats
                                                                     européens de l'industrie de la parfumerie et des
— order Cascina Laura and Gariboldi jointly and                      cosmétiques and Fédération européenne des parfumeurs
     severally to pay the costs.                                                                  détaillants
                                                                                ( Case C-70/97 P)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 131/09 )
The object of this action, which is based on an arbitration
clause, is to recover financial assistance which the                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
Commission granted the defendants so that they could                  1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European
construct a dual generator to produce electricity and heat           Communities in Case T- 8 7/92 between Kruidvat BVBA
from biomass consisting of rice production residue (chaff            and Commission of the European Communities, supported
and husks). The Commission decided to withdraw from                  by Parfums Givenchy SA, Comité de liaison des syndicats
the contract, drawn up between the parties in accordance             europèens de l'industrie de la parfumerie et des
with Italian law, on account of the defendants' failure to           cosmétiques and Federation européenne des parfumeurs
perform their obligations thereunder.                                détaillants, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities on 18 February 1997 by Kruidvat
                                                                     BVBA, represented by O. W. Brouwer, of the Amsterdam
                                                                     Bar, and F. P. Louis and P. Wytinck, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
Action brought on 18 February 1997 by the Commission
 of the European Communities against SNUA SRL ( Servizi              The appellant claims that the Court should:
                    Netezza Urbana ed Affini)
                          Case C-69/97                               — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          12 December 1996 in Case T-87/92 and, if possible,
                          ( 97/C 131/08 )                                 itself declare admissible the action for annulment
                                                                          brought by Kruidvat BVBA before the Court of First
 An action against SNUA SRL ( Servizi Netezza Urbana ed                   Instance, and
 Affini) was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities on 18 February 1997 by ' the                   — order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
 Commission of the European Communities, represented                      proceedings.
 by Paolo Stancanelli and Jean-Francis Pasquier, of its
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
 in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,              — Infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of
 of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, rue Alcide de Gasperi,              the EC Treaty
 Kirchberg.
                                                                          — by inaccurate interpretation and incorrect
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   application of the conditions relating to
                                                                               participation in the competition procedure as an
 — order SNUA to repay ECU 195 397, together with                              element distinguishing a party individually for the
      interest at a rate of ECU 43,09 per day as from 1 April                  purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of
      1988 until the date of actual payment,                                   the EC Treaty,
 — order SNUA to pay to the Commission ECU 60 000,                        — by the finding that the Commission's contested
      or another appropriate sum, by way of damages, and                       decision   was     not    of   individual  concern     to
                                                                               Kruidvat, despite the fact that at the time it was
 — order SNUA to pay the costs.                                                adopted Kruidvat was already involved in
 ---pagebreak--- 26 . 4 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 131 /5
          proceedings brought by Givenchy and pending                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from Juzgado de lo
          before a national court, in which the question of             Social No 1 , Pontevedra, by order of that court of
          the validity of Parfums Givenchy SA's selective               28 January 1997 in the case of Mercedes Gomez Montana
          distribution system was expressly raised,                     v. Claro Sol S. A. and Red Nacional de Ferrocarriles
                                                                                Espaftoles (Renfe)
     — by an inaccurate assessment of the effect of the                                            ( Case C-74/97)
          contested decision on the competitive situation and
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 / 11 )
          of the importance of that criterion when deciding
          whether a person is individually concerned, and
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     — because the finding that Kruidvat's action was                   European Communities by order of Juzgado de lo Social
          inadmissible deprives it of full and effective legal          ( Social Court) No 1 , Pontevedra, of 28 January 1997,
          protection .                                                  which was received at the Court Registry on 20 February
                                                                        1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Mercedes
                                                                        Gomez Montana v. Claro Sol S. A. and Red Nacional de
— Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.                         Ferrocarriles Espanoles ( Renfe ) on the following question .
                                                                        Does Directive 77/187/EEC ( 1 ) of 14 February 1977 cover
                                                                        circumstances in which the termination of a contract with
                                                                        a cleaning company results in the dismissal of the worker
                                                                        employed by the contractor and the cleaning is taken over
Appeal brought on 20 February 1997 by the French                        by the principal, a rail transport undertaking, using its
Republic against the judgment delivered on 11 December                  own employees ?
1996 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in case T-70/94                    (') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .
between Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd
& Co. and the Commission of the European Communities
                supported by the United Kingdom
                        ( Case C-73/97 P )
                           ( 97/C 131 / 10 )                            Action brought on 19 February 1997 by Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 11 December                                            ( Case C-75/97)
1996 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                                ( 97/C 131 / 12 )
Instance of the European Communities in case T-70/94
between Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd
8c Co. and the Commission of the European Communities                   An action against the Commission of the European
supported by the United Kingdom, was brought before the                 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Court of Justice of the European Communities on                         the European Communities on 19 February 1997 by the
20 February 1997 by the French Republic, represented by                 Kingdom of Belgium, represented by Gerwin van Gerven
Catherine de Salins and Frederic Pascal , acting as agents,             and Koen Coppenholle, of the Brussels Bar, with an
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French                 address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Embassy, 9 boulevard Prince Henri .                                     Freddy Brausch, 11 rue Goethe .
                                                                        The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the Court should :
The Appellant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — declare the application for annulment of Decision
— partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First                     SG(96 ) 4080 final of 4 December 1996 , notified by
     Instance of 11 December 1996 in Case T-70/94 in so                      letter S/11511 of 10 December 1996 concerning
     far as that judgment dismissed the objection of                         measures of aid by the Belgian Government in the
                                                                             framework of the Maribel II/III scheme admissible and
     inadmissibility raised by the defendant.
                                                                             well founded, and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     — order the Commission to pay the costs .
In holding that the applicant undertakings are directly and              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
individually concerned by the provisions of Article 1 of                — Infringement of Articles 92 and 1 90 of the EC Treaty:
the contested Regulation, the Court of First Instance failed
to take account of either the general scope or the                      — Maribel II/III does not constitute aid
 legislative character of the Regulation which has legal
effects on all of the operators in categories A and B. The                   The Commission refers to the statement in the Belgian
applicants adduced nothing to distinguish them from other                    legislation that the measure is applied to undertakings
category A operators and justify their being regarded as                     'which are exposed to international competition'. The
 individually concerned by the Regulation .                                  Maribel II/III scheme does not, however, benefit only
                                                                             undertakings which actively engage in export; nor is it
                                                                             true that the Maribel II/III scheme benefits only sectors


title: Case C-123/07: Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-123/07) (1)

   (2008/C 142/38)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-215/06: Action brought on 8 August 2006 — American Clothing Associates v OHIM (figurative mark — maple leaf and the letters RW)

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/12

         Action brought on 8 August 2006 — American Clothing Associates v OHIM (figurative mark — maple leaf and the letters RW)
   (Case T-215/06)
   (2006/C 249/31)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: American Clothing Associates (Evergem, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and N. Clarembeaux, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 May 2006 in Case R 1463/2005-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark consisting of a representation of a maple leaf and the letters RW in respect of goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 40 (application No 2 785 368)

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant first pleads infringement of Article 7(1)(h) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and of Article 6 ter of the Paris Convention in so far as the Board of Appeal of OHIM failed to take into consideration the overall impression of the mark applied for and erred in its assessment of the imitative heraldic character of a maple leaf from which it is formed. The applicant also claims that the Board of Appeal was wrong to refuse to take into consideration the reputation of the trade mark when applying an absolute ground for refusal provided for in Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation No 40/94.


title: Case C-378/13: Action brought on 2 July 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/31

         Action brought on 2 July 2013 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-378/13)
   2013/C 260/58
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and A. Alcover San Pedro)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment delivered by the Court of Justice on 6 October 2005 in Case C-502/03 Commission v Hellenic Republic, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               —

               order that the Commission be paid a proposed penalty payment in the sum of EUR 71 193,60 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment delivered in Case C-502/03, from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the day on which the judgment delivered in Case C-502/03 has been complied with;

               —

               order that the Commission be paid the daily lump sum of EUR 7 786,80 per day from the day on which judgment was delivered in Case C-502/03 until the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case, or the date on which the judgment in Case C-502/03 is complied with if that occurs earlier;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               In the judgment which it delivered on 6 October 2005 in Case C-502/03 Commission v Hellenic Republic, the Court of Justice:

                           ‘1.

                           [declared] that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure compliance with Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, the Hellenic Republic [had] failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

                           2.

                           [ordered] the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.’

               2.

               Article 260(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that if the Court finds that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation arising from that Treaty, that State is required to take all the necessary measures to comply with the judgment.

               3.

               The Commission, after observing the pre-litigation procedure that is provided for in Article 260 TFEU, sent the Hellenic Republic a letter of formal notice and a supplementary letter of formal notice, by which it gave the Hellenic Republic the opportunity to submit its observations relating to achievement of the measures to comply with the aforesaid judgment.

               4.

               After analysing the Hellenic Republic's replies to those letters, and in particular the eight progress reports which the Hellenic Republic produced, the Commission established that the Hellenic Republic still has not taken all the necessary measures that are required in order to comply with the Court's judgment of 6 October 2005 in Case C-502/03, more than seven years after that judgment, and it decided to bring the action provided for in Article 260(2) TFEU.


title: Case T-84/00: Action brought on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios Roussel, Limitada, and Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 163/30                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10.6.2000
— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ necessary                  By the present application they seek annulment of the
    costs.                                                               Commission’s decision addressed to the Member States on
                                                                         withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
                                                                         use which contain that substance.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The pleas in law and arguments adduced are essentially the
The applicants are pharmaceutical undertakings which market              same as in Case T-76/00.
medicinal products containing norpseudoephredin in various
Member States.
By the present application they seek annulment of the
Commission’s decision addressed to the Member States on
withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
use which contain that substance.
The pleas in law and arguments adduced are essentially the               Action brought on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios Roussel,
same as in Case T-76/00.                                                 Limitada, and Roussel Iberica S.A. against the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-85/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 163/60)
Action brought on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios Roussel,
Limitada, and Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l. against
       the Commission of the European Communities                                          (Language of the case: German)
                          (Case T-84/00)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                         (2000/C 163/59)                                 European Communities on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios
                                                                         Roussel, Limitada, of Mem Martins Codex, Portugal, and
                                                                         Roussel Iberica S.A., of Barcelona, Spain, represented by
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         Burkhard Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, Germany.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicants claim that the Court should:
European Communities on 6 April 2000 by Laboratórios
Roussel, Limitada, of Mem Martins Codex, Portugal, and                   — annul Commission Decision K (2000) 608 of 9 March
Laboratoires Roussel Diamant S.a.r.l., of Puteaux, France,                   2000;
represented by Burkhard Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, Ger-
many.                                                                    — in the alternative, annul the Commission’s decision in so
                                                                             far as Article 1 in conjunction with Annex I thereof
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                  requires the Member States Portugal and Spain to withdraw
                                                                             the authorisations for the applicants’ medicinal products
— annul Commission Decision K (2000) 608 of 9 March                          containing fenproporex;
    2000;
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the applicants’ necessary
— in the alternative, annul the Commission’s decision in so                  costs.
    far as Article 1 in conjunction with Annex I thereof requires
    the Member States France and Portugal to withdraw
    the authorisations for the applicants’ medicinal products
    containing clobenzorex;                                              Pleas in law and main arguments
— order the Commission to pay the applicants’ necessary
    costs.                                                               The applicants are pharmaceutical undertakings which market
                                                                         medicinal products containing fenproporex in various Member
                                                                         States.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         By the present application they seek annulment of the
The applicants are pharmaceutical undertakings which market              Commission’s decision addressed to the Member States on
medicinal products containing clobenzorex in various Member              withdrawal of authorisation for medicinal products for human
States.                                                                  use which contain that substance.


title: Case C-96/05: Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/21

         Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-96/05)
   (2005/C 93/39)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gerald Braun and Georgios Zavvos, of the Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 amending Directives 78/660/EEC, 83/349/EEC and 86/635/EEC as regards the valuation rules for the annual and consolidated accounts of certain types of companies as well as of banks and other financial institutions, (1) and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic is failing to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 1 January 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 283 of 27.10.2001, p. 28.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 March2004 in Case C-201/03: Commissionof the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (‘Failureof a Member State to fulfil obligations — Disposal of waste oils — Failureto transpose Directive 75/439/EEC’)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/15

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 30 March 2004
   in Case C-201/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
       (1)

   (‘Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Disposal of waste oils - Failure to transpose Directive 75/439/EEC’)
   (2004/C 106/25)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-201/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Ström and M. Konstantinidis), with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: A. Kruse) – application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the necessary measures under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 23), as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986 (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 43), to ensure that priority is given to the processing of waste oils by regeneration where technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 March 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures under Article 3(1) of Council Directive 75/439/EEC of 16 June 1975 on the disposal of waste oils, as amended by Council Directive 87/101/EEC of 22 December 1986, to ensure that priority is given to the processing of waste oils by regeneration where technical, economic and organisational constraints so allow, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2001 in Case T-359/99, Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG (DKV) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark "EuroHealth" — Absolute ground for refusal — Article (7)(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
15.9.2001              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 259/9
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 14 June 2001                                                           of 7 June 2001
                                                                        in Case T-359/99, Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG
in Joined Cases T-357/99 and T-358/99 Telefon & Buch                    (DKV) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
VerlagsgmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                               (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
       Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                        (Community trade mark — Word mark ‘EuroHealth’ —
(Community trade mark — Word marks UNIVERSALTELE-                       Absolute ground for refusal — Article (7)(1)(b) and (c) of
FONBUCH and UNIVERSALKOMMUNIKATIONSVERZ-                                                   Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
EICHNIS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive
  character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                                (2001/C 259/14)
                         (2001/C 259/13)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        In Case T-359/99, Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG (DKV),
                                                                        established in Cologne (Germany), represented by S. von
                                                                        Petersdorff-Campen, lawyer, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
In Joined Cases T-357/99 and T-358/99 Telefon & Buch                    Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schen-
VerlagsgmbH, established in Salzburg (Austria), represented by          nen and S. Bonne) — action brought against the decision of
H.G. Zeiner and B. Heaman-Dunn, lawyers, with an address                the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation             the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 October
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                 1999 (Case R 19/1999-1), concerning the registration of the
(Agents: S. Bonne, A. von Mühlendahl and E. Joly) —                     word mark ‘EuroHealth’ as a Community trade mark — the
application for annulment of two decisions of the Third Board           Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal               A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 October 1999 in                  J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Cases R 351/1999-3 and R 352/1999-3 refusing registration               a judgment on 7 June 2001, in which it:
of the words UNIVERSALTELEFONBUCH and UNIVERSAL-
KOMMUNIKATIONSVERZEICHNIS as Community trade
marks — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura             1.    Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the                   for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:                 Designs) of 15 October 1999 (Case R 19/1999-1) in so far
                                                                              as it concerns services falling within the category of ‘financial
                                                                              affairs’;
1.    Dismisses the applications;
                                                                        2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                        3.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.00.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.00.


               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/1

         2009/C 220/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 205, 29.8.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 193, 15.8.2009

      OJ C 180, 1.8.2009

      OJ C 167, 18.7.2009

      OJ C 153, 4.7.2009

      OJ C 141, 20.6.2009

      OJ C 129, 6.6.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu