title: Case T-198/12: Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Germany v Commission

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/19

         Action brought on 14 May 2012 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-198/12)
   2012/C 200/39
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Wiedmann)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2012) 1348 final of 1 March 2012 on the national provisions notified by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany maintaining the limit values for lead, barium, arsenic, antimony, mercury and nitrosamines and nitrosable substances in toys beyond the date of application of Directive 2009/48/EC on the safety of toys, notified on 2 March 2012,

                           —

                           in so far as the national provisions notified for maintenance of the limit values for antimony, arsenic and mercury are not approved (Article 1(1)); and

                           —

                           in so far as the national provisions notified for maintenance of the limit values for lead and barium are approved only until 21 July 2013 (Article 1(2) and (3));

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Infringement of the Treaties under the second paragraph of Article 263 (third alternative), in conjunction with Article 114 TFEU, in that the time limitation of the approval granted in respect of lead and barium is unlawful
               The applicant submits that, in so far as the Commission’s approval of the national provisions notified for maintenance of the limit values for lead and barium was limited in time until 21 July 2013 only, the contested decision infringes the Treaties within the meaning of the third alternative in the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU in that the time limitation effectively circumvents the system of time-limits and deemed approval under Article 114 TFEU.

               2.

               Infringement of essential procedural requirements under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU (second alternative) on account of the infringement of the obligation to state reasons, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, for the time limitation of the approval granted in respect of lead and barium
               The applicant submits that the Commission infringed the obligation to state reasons under the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, and thus an essential procedural requirement within the meaning of the second alternative in the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in so far as the Commission’s approval of the national provisions sought for maintenance of the limit values for lead and barium was limited in time until 21 July 2013 only.

               3.

               Misuse of powers under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU (fourth alternative) as a result of the time limitation of the approval granted in respect of lead and barium

               4.

               Infringement of the Treaties under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU (third alternative) on account of the disregard of the assessment criterion under Article 114(4) and (6) TFEU as regards antimony, arsenic and mercury
               The applicant submits that, in so far as the Commission took the view that the Federal Government had failed to establish that Directive 2009/48/EC (1) no longer offers an appropriate level of protection or is harmful to health, there has been an infringement of the Treaties under the third alternative in the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in that the Commission disregarded the criterion provided for under Article 114(4) and (6) TFEU for assessment as to whether and to what extent the maintenance of national provisions beyond the adoption of a harmonisation measure should be approved on the grounds of major needs referred to in Article 36 TFEU.
               The applicant takes the view that — in accordance with the judgment of the Court in Case C-3/00 Denmark v Commission [[2003] ECR I-2643] — the test is whether the applicant Member State has proved that those national provisions ensure a level of health protection which is higher than the Community harmonisation measure and that those provisions do not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.

               5.

               Infringement of the Treaties under the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU (third alternative) on account of the erroneous application in fact and in law of Article 114(4) and (6) TFEU as regards antimony, arsenic and mercury
               The applicant submits that, in so far as the Commission took the view that the Federal Government had failed to establish that the national provisions ensure a level of health protection which is higher than Directive 2009/48/EC, the contested decision also infringes Article 114(4) and (6) TFEU and thus the Treaties within the meaning of the third alternative in the second paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, in that the national provisions setting limit values for arsenic, antimony and mercury in connection with toys actually ensure a level of protection for children’s health which is higher than Directive 2009/48/EC, do not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective and, moreover, the Federal Government has proved this to the requisite legal standard within the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice.

      (1)  Directive 2009/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the safety of toys (OJ 2009 L 170, p. 1).


title: Case C-163/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnon (Greece) lodged on 28 April 2008 — Dimitros G. Ladakis, Andreas M. Birtas, Konstantinos G. Kiriakopoulos, Emmanouil B. Klambonis and Sophocles E. Mastorakis v Dimos Yeropotamou

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnon (Greece) lodged on 28 April 2008 — Dimitros G. Ladakis, Andreas M. Birtas, Konstantinos G. Kiriakopoulos, Emmanouil B. Klambonis and Sophocles E. Mastorakis v Dimos Yeropotamou
   (Case C-163/08)
   (2008/C 171/33)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Monomeles Protodikio Rethimnon
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dimitros G. Ladakis, Andreas M. Birtas, Konstantinos G. Kiriakopoulos, Emmanouil B. Klambonis and Sophocles E. Mastorakis

      Defendant: Dimos Yeropotamou (Municipality of Yeropotamos)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do clause 5 and clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, which forms an integral part of Council Directive 1999/70/EC (OJ 1999 L 175 p. 43), mean that Community law (by reason of the application of the said Framework Agreement) does not allow a Member State to adopt measures (a) where an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement already existed under national law before the directive entered into force and (b) where the measures adopted in order to apply the Framework Agreement reduce the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, where there is an equivalent legal measure under national law, within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement, which existed before Directive 1999/70/EC entered into force, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920 at issue in the main proceedings, is the adoption of a legal measure by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement, such as Article 11 of Presidential Decree 164/2004 at issue in the main proceedings, an unacceptable reduction in the general level [of protection] afforded to fixed-term workers under national law within the meaning of clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement:

                           (a)

                           when the legal measure in question applying the Framework Agreement was adopted after the time-limit for transposing Directive 1999/70/EC had elapsed, but only fixed-term employment contracts and relationships which were in effect before its entry into force or had expired within a certain period before its entry into force but after the time-limit for transposing the Directive had elapsed fall within its chronological scope, although the equivalent legal measure which already existed does not have a chronologically restricted scope of application and covers all fixed-term employment contracts which had been concluded, were in effect or had expired when Directive 1999/70/EC came into force and the time-limit for its transposition had elapsed;

                           (b)

                           when fixed-term employment contracts or relationships only fall within the scope of application of the legal measure in question applying the Framework Agreement if they can be regarded as successive within the meaning of that measure, satisfying the cumulative requirements:

                                       (i)

                                       that there is a maximum period of three months between them;

                                       (ii)

                                       that they extend for a total of at least 24 months before the measure in question enters into force, irrespective of the number of contract renewals or that, on the basis of those renewals, there has been a minimum total period of work of 18 months over an overall period of 24 months from the original contract, provided that there are at least three renewals since the original contract, whereas the existing equivalent legal measure does not lay down such conditions but covers all the fixed-term (successive) employment contracts, irrespective of a minimum total period of work and a minimum number of contract renewals;

                           (c)

                           when the legal measure in question applying the Framework Agreement provides as a legal consequence for the protection of fixed-term workers and the prevention of abuse, within the meaning of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, for the qualification thereafter (ex nunc) of fixed-term employment contracts as contracts of indefinite duration, whereas the pre-existing legal measure provides for the qualification of fixed-term contracts as contracts of indefinite duration from the time they were originally concluded (ex tunc)?

               3.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, where an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, which forms an integral part of Directive 1999/70/EC, already existed in the national legal order before that directive entered into force, as in the case of Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920 at issue in the main proceedings, is the adoption of a legal measure by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement, such as Article 7 of Presidential Decree 164/2004 at issue in the main proceedings an unacceptable reduction in the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law within the meaning of clause 8(1) and (3) of the Framework Agreement, when that provides, as the sole means of protection of fixed-term workers from abuse, for an obligation on the part of the employer to pay wages and severance pay where workers have wrongfully been employed under successive fixed-term employment contracts, bearing in mind

                           (a)

                           that the obligation to pay wages and severance pay is provided for under national law for all employment relationships and is not intended specifically to prevent abuse within the meaning of the Framework Agreement, and

                           (b)

                           that the legal consequence of the application of the earlier equivalent legal measure is that successive fixed-term contracts of employment are recognised as a contract of indefinite duration?

               4.

               If all the above questions are answered in the affirmative, should the national court, in interpreting national law in accordance with Directive 1999/70/EC, disapply the provisions of the legal measure which are not compatible with it, but which were adopted by reason of the application of the Framework Agreement and result in a reduction in the general level of protection afforded to fixed-term workers under national law, such as Articles 7 and 11 of Presidential Decree 164/2004 and apply instead an equivalent legal measure which existed before the directive entered into force, such as Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920?

               5.

               If the national court finds that — in principle — a provision (in this case Article 8(3) of Law 2112/1920) that constitutes an equivalent legal measure within the meaning of clause 5(1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, which is an integral part of Directive 1999/70/EC, is applicable to a dispute over fixed-term work and, on the basis of that provision, the finding that successive contracts of employment were concluded as a fixed-term contract for no objective reason relating to the nature, type or features of the work offered means that the contracts must be recognised as a contract of employment of indefinite duration, then

                           (a)

                           is it compatible with Community law for a national court to interpret and apply national law to the effect that the fact that a legal provision governing employment under a fixed-term contract of employment in order to meet seasonal, periodic, temporary, exceptional needs was used as the legal basis for concluding a fixed-term contract constitutes an objective reason in all cases for concluding such contracts, even though the requirements covered were in fact fixed and permanent, and

                           (b)

                           is it compatible with Community law for a national court to interpret and apply national law to the effect that a provision prohibiting the conversion of fixed-term contracts of employment in the public sector to contracts of indefinite duration must be construed as an absolute prohibition in any circumstance to convert a fixed-term employment contract or relationship in the public sector to an employment contract or relationship of indefinite duration, even if it was wrongfully concluded as a fixed-term contract, that is to say, when the requirements met were in fact fixed and permanent, and that the national court has no discretion in such cases to make a finding as to the true character of the legal employment relationship at issue and correctly qualify it as a contract of indefinite duration? Alternatively should the prohibition in question be restricted solely to fixed-term contracts of employment which were in fact concluded in order to meet temporary, unforeseeable, urgent, exceptional or similar types of special requirements and not to cases in which they were in fact concluded in order to meet fixed and permanent requirements?


title: Case C-177/13 P: Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Marek Marszałkowski against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2013 in Case T-159/11 Marszałkowski v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/4

         Appeal brought on 9 April 2013 by Marek Marszałkowski against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2013 in Case T-159/11 Marszałkowski v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-177/13 P)
   2013/C 207/06
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: Marek Marszałkowski (represented by: C. Sadkowski, radca prawny)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Mar-Ko Fleischwaren GmbH & Co. KG

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal of the General Court, confirm the invalidity of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 11 January 2011 (Case R 760/2010-4), order OHIM to proceed with registration of the mark ‘Marko Walichnowy’ applied for on behalf of the appellant in so far as it concerns the goods mentioned in the appeal, and order the other party to the appeal proceedings to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the costs of the proceedings before the General Court;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside in its entirety the judgment under appeal of the General Court and refer the case back to that Court for reconsideration, in accordance with the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant claims that the General Court breached Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and Article 48(2) of its own Rules of Procedure.
   With regard to the breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, the appellant submits that the General Court:

               —

               committed a beach of law in failing to examine correctly whether the goods covered by the application for registration of the marks in conflict were similar;

               —

               committed a breach of law in misapplying Article 8(1)(b) by finding that the marks in conflict were similar;

               —

               committed a breach of law in finding that the word MARKO was the dominant element of the sign ‘Walichnowy Marko’;

               —

               committed a breach of law in failing to define the relevant public in respect of whom there was a likelihood of confusion, and in indicating that that likelihood existed in the mind of the average Polish consumer;

               —

               committed a breach of law in failing to have regard for the reputation of the trade mark ‘Walichnowy Marko’ and in failing to take account of the fact that it has enjoyed priority within Polish territory since as early as 1995;

               —

               committed a breach of law in failing to have regard for the level of attention which the average consumer has for the goods to which the marks in conflict are attached and in failing to consider whether that level of attention might reduce the likelihood of confusion.

         With regard to the breach of Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the appellant submits that, in paragraph 26 of the judgment under appeal, the General Court erred in holding that it was not until the stage of the hearing that the present appellant stated that the mark applied for had been registered in Poland since 1995.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 3 October 2001 in Case T-140/00: Zapf Creation AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — "New Born Baby" — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 3/30                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       5.1.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 3 October 2001                                                        of 19 September 2001
in Case T-140/00: Zapf Creation AG v Office for Harmon-
                                                                          in Case T-152/00: E v Commission of the European
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                Communities (1)
                             (OHIM) (1)
(Community trade mark — ‘New Born Baby’ — Absolute                        (Officials — Candidacy rejected — Infringement of the
grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation               vacancy notice — Manifest error of assessment — Discrimi-
                          (EC) No 40/94)                                                     nation — Misuse of powers)
                           (2002/C 3/51)                                                              (2002/C 3/52)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                              (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-140/00: Zapf Creation AG, established in Rödental
(Germany), represented by A. Kockläuner, avocat, with an                  In Case T-152/00: E, a member of the temporary staff of
address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmon-             the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
isation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                  Brussels, represented by G. Vandersanden, Avocat, with an
(OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen, A. von Mühlendahl and C. Røhl                address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of
Søberg) — action brought against the decision of the Third                the European Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall)
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           — first an application for annulment of the rejection of the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 21 March 2000                  applicant’s candidacy for the post of head of ‘Mediterranean’
(Case R 348/1999-3) relating to the registration of ‘New Born             unit, Directorate ‘International role’ of the ‘Science, research
Baby’ as a Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance             and development’ Directorate General and of the appointment
(Fourth Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili            of P to that post and, secondly, a claim for damages allegedly
and R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,              caused by those two decisions — the Court of First Instance
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 3 October 2001, in             (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President,
which it:                                                                 A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for
                                                                          the Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 September 2001, in
                                                                          which it:
1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
      for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
      Designs) of 21 March 2000 (Case R 348/1999-3);                      1.    dismisses the application;
2.    Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the     2.    orders the parties to bear their own costs.
      applicant.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: Case F-91/10: Action brought on 30 September 2010 — AK v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/40

         Action brought on 30 September 2010 — AK v Commission
   (Case F-91/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/79
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: AK (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s application for compensation for the loss suffered by reason of the failure to establish career development reports and to open an administrative inquiry to establish the facts of harassment and application for compensation for the damage suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision rejecting the application filed by the applicant on 24 November 2009 seeking compensation for the loss suffered by reason of the failure to establish his career development reports for 2001-2002, 2004, 2005 and 2008 and seeking the opening of an administrative inquiry to establish the facts of harassment;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay to the applicant, firstly, the sum of EUR 53 000 for the loss of the chance of promotion to grade A5 in promotion year 2003, in addition to the regularisation of his pension rights by payment of the corresponding contributions; secondly, the sum of EUR 400 per month (corresponding to 70 % of the difference between the invalidity allowance which she receives and that which she would have received had she been promoted in 2003); and, thirdly, the sum of EUR 35 000 for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the maintenance of her irregular administrative situation despite, inter alia, the judgments of 20 April 2005 and 6 October 2009 of the General Court and of 13 December 2007 of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case F-103/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 July 2010 — Allen and Others v Commission (Civil service — Staff employed at the JET project — Actions for damages — Reasonable period — Out of time)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/72

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 13 July 2010 — Allen and Others v Commission
      (Case F-103/09) (1)

      (Civil service - Staff employed at the JET project - Actions for damages - Reasonable period - Out of time)
      (2010/C 288/136)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: John Allen (Horspath, UK) and others (represented by: P. Lasok QC, I. Hutton and B. Lask, barristers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

         Re:

      Application for damages for the harm caused to the applicants by the defendant’s failure to recruit them as temporary agents while they were employed in the joint undertaking JET.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The application is dismissed as inadmissible;

                  2.

                  Mr Allen and the 110 other applicants whose names have been retained on the list of applicants are directed to pay all the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010, p. 51.


C 47/26                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           21.2.2004
Action brought on 9 January 2004 by the Commission of                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                           of Germany                                   1.    declare that, by failing to adopt or in any event to
                                                                              inform the Commission of the laws, regulations and
                                                                              administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
                          (Case C-5/04)                                       fully with Council Directive 1999/63/EC (1) of 21 June
                                                                              1999 concerning the Agreement on the organisation of
                         (2004/C 47/44)                                       working time of seafarers concluded by the European
                                                                              Community Shipowners’ Association (ECSA) and the
                                                                              Federation of Transport Workers’ Unions in the European
                                                                              Union (FST) — Annex: European Agreement on the
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                         organisation of working time of seafarers, the Republic
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3
ties on 9 January 2004 by the Commission of the European                      of that directive; and
Communities, represented by Karen Banks and Dr Claudia
Schmidt, Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.             2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the case.
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
      the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative          The period within which the directive was to be implemented
      provisions necessary to implement Directive 98/44/EC (1)          expired on 30 June 2002.
      of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July
      1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inven-
                                                                        (1) OJ 1999 L 167, p. 33.
      tions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under that directive; and
2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
      of the case.
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-376/99 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (2004/C 47/46)
The period within which the directive was to be implemented
expired on 30 July 2000.                                                By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-376/99: Federal Republic of
(1) OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13.                                               Germany v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 352, 4.12.1999.
Action brought on 13 January 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of
                             Austria                                           Removal from the register of Case C-101/03 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 47/47)
                         (Case C-10/04)
                         (2004/C 47/45)                                 By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                        from the register of Case C-101/03: Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v Italian Republic.
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 13 January 2004 by the Commission of the European                    (1) OJ C 118, 18.5.2002.
Communities, represented by G. Rozet and H. Kreppel, Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-407/12: Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/58

         Order of the President of the Court of 27 March 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-407/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/121
   Language of the case: Slovene
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Case C-585/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 13 December 2010 — Niels Møller v Haderslev Kommune

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 13 December 2010 — Niels Møller v Haderslev Kommune
   (Case C-585/10)
   2011/C 38/10
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Niels Møller

      Defendant: Haderslev Kommune

      Question referred

   Is subheading 6.6(c) of Annex I to Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 (1) concerning integrated pollution prevention and control to be interpreted as covering places for gilts?

      (1)  OJ L 257, p. 26


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf made by order of that court of 14 August 1996 in the case of Göritz Intransco International GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Case C-292/96)

text:
No C 318/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26 . 10 . 96
 received at the Court Registry on 3 September 1996, for a              Action brought on 9 September 1996 by the Federal
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against                  Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
Martino Grado and Shahid Bashir on the following                                           European Communities
 question:                                                                                ( Case C-293/96
                                                                                ( 96/C 318/11 )
 Is it compatible with European Community law or is it
 contrary to the prohibition on discrimination laid down in
 Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union for a
 Staatsanwalt ( Public Prosecutor ) expressly to refuse to use          An action against the Commission of the European
 the courtesy title 'Herr' in an application, which he has              Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
 drafted and subsequently placed before the court for                   European Communities on 9 September 1996 by the Federal
 signature, for a summary punishment order in the case of a             Republic of Germany, represented by Dr Ernst Roder, of the
 foreign employee ( for the purposes of Articles 48 to 51 of the        Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, D-53107 Bonn, and
Treaty on European Union ) from another Member State of                 Dr Alfred Dittrich, of the Federal Ministry of Justice,
the European Union, particularly where this is contrary to              D-53175 Bonn .
the custom of the Staatsanwaltschaft ( Public Prosecutor's
 Office ) and to the Staatsanwalt's own usual practice ?
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — declare void Article 1 ( 1 ) of Commission Regulation
                                                                            ( EC ) No 1 107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                   geographical indications and designations of origin
Diisseldorf made by order of that court of 14 August 1996                   under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
in the case of Goritz Intransco International GmbH v.                       Regulation ( EEC) No 2081 /92 (') in so far as it is laid
                     Hauptzollamt Diisseldorf                               down in the Annex thereto that for cheeses from Greece
                          ( Case C-292/96 )                                 the designation ' feta ' is to be registered as a protected
                                                                            designation of origin (PDO ) in the 'Register of protected
                             96/C 318/ 10 )
                                                                            designations of origin and protected geographical
                                                                            indications' maintained by the Commission,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Fourth Senate of the
Finanzgericht ( Finance Court ) Diisseldorf of 14 August               — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                         proceedings.
4 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Goritz Intransco International GmbH v. Hauptzollamt
( Principal Customs Office ) Diisseldorf on the following
questions :                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
 1 . Is Article 76 ( 1 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC )
      No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs                    The designation 'feta' does not constitute a designation of
      Code ( 1 ), in conjunction with Article 398 et seq. of            origin within the meaning of Article 2 ( 3 ) of Council
      Commission Regulation (EEC ) No 2454/93 laying                   Regulation (EEC ) No 2081 /92 (2 ). ' Feta ' is not a
      down provisions for the implementation of Council                geographical name . Nor is it a traditional name designating
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 establishing the                   an agricultural product or foodstuff originating in a specific
      Community Customs Code ( 2 ), the legal basis for grant          region or place; cheeses marketed under the name ' feta ' have
      of 'authorized consignor' status, or is such                      been produced for a long time in numerous countries
      authorization, pursuant to Article 76 ( 4 ) of Regulation        outside Greece, for example Denmark, Germany, France ,
      ( EEC ) No 2913/92, to be based only on the said                 the Balkans, Iran and the USA. Moreover, feta cheeses are
      Article 398 et seq.}                                             not products, the quality or characteristics of which are
                                                                       essentially or exclusively due to a particular geographical
2 . Does Article 398 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2454/93                  environment with its inherent natural and human factors
      preclude authorization as an 'authorized consignor'              and the production, processing and preparation of which
      where, as a result of goods having already been                  take place in a defined geographical area . According to the
      presented to customs, the exemption from the                     specification submitted by the competent Greek body, the
      obligation to present them is no longer possible ?               administrative district of Lesbos is the only possible area of
                                                                       origin in the Aegean Sea ; pursuant to Regulation ( EEC )
(') OJ No L 302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .                             No 2019/93 ( 3 ) Community law provides for aid for the
( 2 ) OJ No L 253 , 11 . 10 . 1993 , p . 1 .                           production of feta on such islands as are not referred to in
                                                                       the abovementioned specification . The Federal Government
                                                                       takes the view that ' feta ' is a generic name which by virtue of
                                                                       Article 17 ( 2 ), third sentence, of Regulation No 2081/92


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 11 July 1996 in Case T-161/94: Sinochem Heilongjiang v. Council of the European Communities (Anti-dumping - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Conduct of the investigation - Injury)

text:
 No C 247/ 14          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 8 . 96
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              compensation of BFR 14 797 706 for damage allegedly
                        of 11 July 1996                               suffered by the applicant following reduction of the
                                                                      financial assistance granted to the other party to a contract
 in Case T-161 /94 : Sinochem Heilongjiang v. Council of the          concluded by it in relation to a project financed by the
                 European Communities ( 1 )                           European Development Fund — the Court of First Instance
 (Anti-dumping — Action for annulment — Admissibility —               ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen , President, and
           Conduct of the investigation — Injury)                     R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; H. Jung,
                           ( 96/C 247/28 )                            Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 1 July 1996 , in which it:
                                                                       1 . dismisses the action;
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
In Case T-161 /94 : Sinochem Heilongjiang, established at
Harbin ( China ), represented by Izzet M. Sinan, Barrister, of        (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach ,
 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Council of the European
Communities ( Agents : Erik H. Stein , Ramon Torrent and
Hans-Jürgen Rabe ), supported by the Commission of the
European Communities ( Agents : Eric L. White and
Claus-Michael Happe ) — application for annulment of                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3434/91 of 25 November
 1 991 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of                                  of 11 July 1996
oxalic acid originating in India or the People 's Republic of         in Case T-271 /94 : Eugenio Branco Lda v. Commission of
China ( OJ No L 326 , 1991 , p. 6 ) — the Court of First                             the European Communities (')
Instance ( First Chamber, Extended Composition ),                     (Applications for annulment — European Social Fund —
composed of A. Saggio, President, and C. W. Bellamy, A.               Reduction of financial assistance initially granted —
Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges;              Absence of an act which may be challenged —
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a                                 Inadmissibility)
judgment on 1 1 July 1996 , in which it:
                                                                                96/C 247/30 )
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                     In Case T-271 /94 : Eugenio Branco Lda , having its registered
(') OJ No C 103 , 23 . 4 . 1992 .                                    office in Lisbon , represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Bar
                                                                     of Vila Nova de Gaia , with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, against
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Ana
                                                                     Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of a
                                                                     decision allegedly taken by the defendant and notified by a
                                                                     letter from the Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo
                                                                     Social Europeu ( Department of European Social Fund
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Affairs ) of 25 May 1 994 and by a letter from the defendant
                        of 11 July 1996                              of 16 June 1994 rejecting a claim for final payment of
in Case T-l 75 /94 : International Procurement Services SA v.
                                                                     financial assistance granted to the applicant by the
                                                                     European Social Fund for two training programmes,
       Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )                  reducing such assistance and seeking repayment of the
(Action for compensation — Public contract — European                advances previously paid by the European Social Fund and
Development Fund — Non-contractual liability —                       the Portuguese State — the Court of First Instance of the
           Determination of the origin of goods)                     European Communities ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R.
                          ( 96/C 247/29 )                            Schintgen , President, and R. García-Valdecasas and J. Azizi,
                                                                     Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                     gave a judgment on 11 July 1996 , in which it:
              (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;
In Case T-l 75/94 : International Procurement Services SA ,
whose registered office is in Brussels , represented by Peter        2 . orders the defendant to pay the costs.
De Troyer, of the Audenarde Bar, and Lydia Lorang, of the
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                       ( ) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
Luxembourg at the latter's Chambers, 6 Rue Heine, against
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
Etienne Lasnet and Hervé Lehman ) — application for


title: Case C-84/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Sonos Europe BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 8517, 8518, 8519, 8527 and 8543 — Stand-alone device designed to retrieve, receive and stream digital audio files in the form of amplified sound)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/14

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — the Netherlands) — Sonos Europe BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-84/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Customs union and Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8517, 8518, 8519, 8527 and 8543 - Stand-alone device designed to retrieve, receive and stream digital audio files in the form of amplified sound))
   (2016/C 156/19)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sonos Europe BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting, successively, from Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a stand-alone device designed to retrieve, receive and stream digital audio files in the form of amplified sound, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must, subject to the referring court’s assessment of all of the facts which it has available to it, be classified under tariff heading 8519 of that nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.


title: Case C-128/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 6 April 2009 — Antoine Boxus, Willy Roua v Région wallone

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 6 April 2009 — Antoine Boxus, Willy Roua v Région wallone
   (Case C-128/09)
   2009/C 153/35
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Antoine Boxus, Willy Roua

      Defendant: Région wallone

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can 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 Council Directive No 97/11/EC (2) and Directive No 2003/35/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council, 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 T-275/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — Drahtwerk St. Ingbert and Others v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/28

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — Drahtwerk St. Ingbert and Others v Commission
   (Case T-275/14)
   2014/C 223/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Drahtwerk St. Ingbert GmbH (St. Ingbert, Germany) DWK Drahtwerk Köln GmbH (Cologne, Germany), Kalksteingrube Auersmacher GmbH (Völklingen, Germany), Rogesa Roheisengesellschaft Saar mbH (Dillingen, Germany), Stahlguss Saar GmbH (St. Ingbert) and Zentralkokerei Saar GmbH (Dillingen) (represented by: S. Altenschmidt and H. Janssen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 18 December 2013 in State aid case SA.33995 (2013/C) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU

                           —

                           The applicants claim that the contested decision infringes Article 107(1) TFEU because the EEG-surcharge provided for in the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, hereinafter referred to as EEG) and the special compensation regime did not constitute an allocation of State or State-controlled resources. All the facts relevant to the qualification of those measures were determined in the preliminary proceedings between the Commission and the Federal Republic of Germany. There were no longer any doubts, which the Commission should have found in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty

                           —

                           The applicants submit in that regard that the Commission infringed Article 108(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty by applying the procedure for new aid pursuant to Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 instead of the procedure for existing aid pursuant to Article 17 et seq. of Regulation No 659/1999 in order to review its provisional assessment of the EEG as aid. In that regard, the applicants observe in particular that, by decision of 22 May 2002, the Commission did not classify the 2000 EEG as aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU because there was no transfer of State resources. The changes from the 2000 EEG to the 2012 EEG were not substantial in comparison to the Commission decision of 22 May 2002. The Commission, therefore, could have asserted an amended legal opinion in a proceeding pursuant to Article 108(1) TFEU without impacting on the applicants.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of audi alteram partem

                           —

                           The applicants also claim that the defendant adopted the contested decision without previously giving the applicants the opportunity to provide comments.

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


title: Case T-435/17: Action brought on 30 March 2017 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/54

         Action brought on 30 March 2017 — Grendene v EUIPO — Hipanema (HIPANEMA)
   (Case T-435/17)
   (2017/C 283/83)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grendene (Sobral, Brazil) (represented by: J. L. de Castro Hermida, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

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

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘HIPANEMA’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 154 586

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20/01/2017 in Case R 629/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and replace it with a decision recognising the affinity between the goods covered by the mark applied for and those protected by the opponent’s earlier marks, to the extent necessary in order to acknowledge a similarity between those goods within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 207/2009 on the European Union trade mark;

               —

               once that similarity between the goods is acknowledged, compare the signs at issue from a verbal perspective, which was not done either during the opposition proceedings or during the administrative action, conclude that the signs at issue are identical phonetically and aurally and similar graphically, hold that peaceful coexistence between the marks at issue is impossible and, lastly, reject the application for protection in the European Union of international trademark No 1 154 586 ‘HIPANEMA’, Class 14. Or, if the General Court does not have jurisdiction to do so, remit the question to the Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, subject to the requirement that it acknowledge the similarity between the marks at issue.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-490/14: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Legal protection of databases — Directive 96/9/EC — Article 1(2) — Scope — Databases — Topographic maps — Independence of materials constituting a database — Possibility of separating those materials without affecting the value of their informative content — Account taken of the purpose of a topographic map for the user)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH
   (Case C-490/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Legal protection of databases - Directive 96/9/EC - Article 1(2) - Scope - Databases - Topographic maps - Independence of materials constituting a database - Possibility of separating those materials without affecting the value of their informative content - Account taken of the purpose of a topographic map for the user))
   (2015/C 429/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Freistaat Bayern

      Defendant: Verlag Esterbauer GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases must be interpreted as meaning that geographical information extracted from a topographic map by a third party so that that information may be used to produce and market another map retains, following its extraction, sufficient informative value to be classified as ‘independent materials’ of a ‘database’ within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case C-211/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2016 — Bimotor SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale II di Torino

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2016 — Bimotor SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale II di Torino
   (Case C-211/16)
   (2016/C 251/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Torino

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Bimotor SpA

      Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Provinciale II di Torino

      Question referred

   Does the Community legislation on VAT (Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977, as amended by Directive 2002/38/EC (2) and Directive 2006/112/EC (3)) preclude legislation of a Member State — such as Article 34(1) of Law No 388 of 23 December 2000 — under which VAT claims may be repaid or used to offset tax owed, for a given tax year, not in their entirety but only up to a predetermined maximum limit?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Directive 2002/38/EC of 7 May 2002 amending and amending temporarily Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the value added tax arrangements applicable to radio and television broadcasting services and certain electronically supplied services (OJ 2002 L 128, p. 41).

      (3)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2005 in Case T-265/03 Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Food aid — Partial seizure of delivery guarantee — Request for repayment of the sum seized — Arbitration clause — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/18

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 9 June 2005
   in Case T-265/03 Helm Düngemittel GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Food aid - Partial seizure of delivery guarantee - Request for repayment of the sum seized - Arbitration clause - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 229/37)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-265/03: Helm Düngemittel GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by W. Waschmann, lawyer, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Berscheid and M. Niejahr, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action seeking annulment of the decision allegedly contained in a letter from the Commission of 23 May 2003 concerning the seizure of part of the delivery guarantee provided by the applicant on grounds of delay in the delivery of fertilizer supplied as part of a food aid action for the benefit of North Korea carried out pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2519/97 of 16 December 1997 laying down general rules for the mobilisation of products to be supplied under Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/96 as Community food aid (OJ 1997 L 346, p. 23) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger, President, J. Azizi and E. Cremona, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 239 of 4.10.2003.


title: Case C-214/08 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2008 by Philippe Guigard against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2008 in Case T-301/05 Guigard v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/19

         Appeal brought on 22 May 2008 by Philippe Guigard against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2008 in Case T-301/05 Guigard v Commission
   (Case C-214/08 P)
   (2008/C 223/31)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Philippe Guigard (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the appeal admissible;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 11 March 2008 in Case T-301/05;

               —

               grant the application for annulment and damages made by the applicant at first instance;

               —

               order the defendant at first instance to pay all the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant puts forward essentially three pleas in support of its appeal.
   By its first plea, which consists of two parts, the appellant claims, first of all, that the Court of First Instance incorrectly interpreted the Fourth Lomé Convention (1).
   The error consists, first, of the fact that the Court held that under Article 313(2)(k) of the Lomé Convention it is for the national authorising officer to decide on the hiring of consultants and other technical assistance experts, without taking account of the power of budgetary control and administration of funds afforded to the Commission by that convention and the obligation on the latter institution to offer the national authorising officer technical assistance in the negotiation of contracts.
   The error committed by the Court consists, second, of the fact that it held that the request from the national authorising officer to the Commission for approval of the decision to renew the appellant's contract of employment must contain an explicit reference to Article 314 of the Lomé Convention in order to make the 30-day time-limit referred to therein start to run, even though no such a requirement arises from that article. According to the appellant, if the Court had correctly interpreted that article it should have held that the Commission did not comply with that time-limit.
   By its second plea, the appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is vitiated by a clear contradiction in its reasoning as the Court held that, as regards the plea alleging infringement of Article 317(a) of the Lomé Convention, on one hand, that plea was out of time and, on the other, that it was subsumed within the plea alleging infringement of Article 313(2)(k) of the convention. According to the appellant, the same plea cannot be rejected as being both inadmissible and unfounded.
   By its third plea, the appellant claims, lastly, that the Court infringed his rights of defence in that, first, it failed to take account of all the arguments that he put forward at the hearing and, second, it misinterpreted the scope of his plea alleging infringement of the principles of care and sound administration and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

      (1)  Fourth convention concluded between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) and the European Economic Community, signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989 (approved by Decision of the Council and the Commission of 25 February 1991 on the conclusion of the fourth ACP-EEC Convention (OJ 1991 L 229, p. 1), as amended by the agreement signed in Mauritius on 4 November 1995 (OJ 1998 L 156, p. 3).


title: Case T-42/13: Action brought on 28 January 2013 — 1. garantovaná v Commission

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/30

         Action brought on 28 January 2013 — 1. garantovaná v Commission
   (Case T-42/13)
   2013/C 79/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: 1. garantovaná a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented by: M. Powell, Solicitor, G. Forwood, Barrister, M. Staroň and P. Hodál, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Commission’s letter of 21 December 2012, in Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium Carbide, in so far as it:

                           —

                           Applies an interest rate of 4.5% to the periods during which the Court had i) suspended the operation of Article 2 of the Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 in Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries, as regards the applicant, and ii) suspended the obligation on the applicant to provide a bank guarantee in order to avoid the immediate recovery of the fine imposed by Article 2 of that decision;

                           —

                           Sets the balance outstanding at 25 January 2013, covering the fine and late payment interest, at EUR 20 293 586,60;

                           —

                           Gives formal notice that the applicant should, at the latest by 25 January 2013, either make a provisional payment of EUR 20 293 586,60 or deposit an acceptable financial guarantee covering this amount.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission lacked any legal basis to impose interest in respect of the period covered by the Ex Parte Interim Measures Order, as the Ex Parte Interim Measures Order of 20 October 2009 suspended the operation of Article 2 of Decision C(2009) 5791 in so far as it concerned the applicant. As such, the fine did not become ‘due’ within the meaning of Article 79(c) of the Implementing Rules (1). In accordance with the principle of accessorium sequitur principale, interest relating to the fine can only begin to accrue from the date on which the fine is due.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that, as regards the period covered by the Interim Measures Order, the application of the penalty interest rate of 4.5% breached the applicant’s legitimate expectations, as the Interim Measures Order of 2 March 2011 suspended the obligation on the applicant to provide a bank guarantee in order to avoid the immediate recovery of the fine imposed on it by Article 2 of Decision C(2009) 5791. This put the applicant in the same position it would have been in, had it provided the bank guarantee. The applicant was therefore entitled to rely on a legitimate expectation, created by the Commission’s letter of 24 July 2009 notifying Decision C(2009) 5791, that interest on the fine would be payable at the rate set down in Article 86(5) of the Implementing Rules.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the application of the penalty interest rate of 4.5% to the periods covered by the interim measures orders deprives the interim measures orders of their practical effect, as the rationale for the two interest rates contained in Articles 86(2)(b) and 86(5) of the Implementing Rules is to incentivise undertakings to provide a bank guarantee, and, conversely, to penalise those that refuse to pay the fine when it becomes due, or to provide an appropriate bank guarantee. The applicant should not be penalised by the imposition of a punitive rate of interest for not providing a bank guarantee, in circumstances when i) the Court has suspended the operation of the fine, and ii) has held that it was objectively impossible for the applicant to provide a bank guarantee.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that that the application of the penalty interest rate of 4.5 % to the periods covered by the interim measures orders violates the principle of proportionality. It would be disproportionate to penalise the applicant through the application of interest at the rate provided for in Article 86(2)(b) of the Implementing Rules, in circumstances where i) the fine is not enforceable, and ii) the EU judicature has established that it cannot pay the fine or provide a suitable bank guarantee.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 357, p. 1), as amended.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by order of that court of 17 March 1995 in the case of Paul Daut GmbH & Co KG v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Gütersloh (Case C-105/95)

text:
No C 159/ 16          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24 . 6 . 95
    which judgments are based requires those reasons, in                  procedural conditions laid down by the national law of
    particular, to be legally admissible, that is to say,                 the Member States concerning claims for reparation of
    relevant, free from errors of law or fact and                         damage on account of failure to implement a
    consistent,                                                           Community directive must be the same as ( or in any
                                                                          event not more unfavourable than) those laid down by
— infringement of the Staff Regulations of officials of the               the national legislator in belatedly implementing the
    European Communities, in particular Article 73 thereof,               Directive itself?
    and of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the
    European Communities against the risk of Accident and            (') OJ No L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980 , p . 23 .
    of Occupational Disease , in particular Article 3
    thereof,
— breach of the general legal principles applying under
    Community law, namely, in particular, the principles of          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberver
    legal certainty, good faith, the protection of legitimate        waltungsgericht fiir das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by
                                                                     order of that court of 17 March 1995 in the case of Paul
    expectations and the duty to have regard for the welfare
                                                                     Daut GmbH &c Co KG v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises
    and/or interests of officials, of the principle that acts
    should be done within a reasonable time, and also of the                                         Gxitersloh
    principle that all administrative acts must be based on                                     ( Case C-105/95 )
    reasons which are legally admissible, that is to say,                                         ( 95/C 159/31 )
    relevant and free from errors of law and/or fact .
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the Thirteenth
                                                                     Senate of the Oberverwaltungsgericht fiir das Land
                                                                     Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Higher Administrative Court, North
References for preliminary rulings from the Pretura                  Rhine Westphalia ) of 17 March 1995 , which was received at
Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa by orders of that court          the Court Registry on 31 March 1995 , for a preliminary
of 21 March 1995 in the cases of 1 . Danila Bonifaci and             ruling in the case of Paul Daut GmbH & Co KG v.
Others, 2 . Wanda Berto and Others v. Istituto Nazionale             Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Giitersloh on the following
               délia Previdenza Sociale ( INPS )                     questions:
                ( Cases C-94/95 and C-95/95 )
                                                                     Is it compatible with Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty in
                         ( 95/C 159/30 )                             conjunction with Council Directive 64/433/EEC on health
                                                                     requirements and the marketing of fresh meat (*) ('the fresh
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the             meat Directive ') in the codified version annexed to Council
European Communities by orders of the Pretura                        Directive 91/497/EEC of 29 July 1991 ( 2 ) as amended by
Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa ( District Magistrate's          Directive 92/5/EEC of 10 February 1992 ( 3 ) and in
Court, Bassano del Grappa ) of 21 March 1995 , which were            conjunction with Directive 77/99/EEC on health problems
received at the Court Registry on 24 March 1 995 , for               affecting intra-Community trade in meat products ( 4 ) ('the
preliminary rulings in the cases of 1 . Danila Bonifaci and          meat products Directive') in the version annexed to
Others, 2 . Wanda Berto and Others v. Istituto Nazionale             Directive 92/5/EEC if the respondent — on the basis of
délia Previdenza Sociale ( National Social Welfare                   paragraph 17 ( 1 ) ( 2 ) of the Verordnung iiber die
Institution — INPS ) on the following questions :                    hygienischen           Anforderungen         und     amtlichen
                                                                     Untersuchungen beim Verkehr mit Fleisch ( Regulations on
1 . Must Article 4 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC ( l )       hygiene requirements and official examinations relating to
     be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may            trade in meat, 'the FlHV') of 30 October 1986 , BGBl 1 1678 ,
     opt to limit the liability of the guarantee institutions to     as last amended by the EWR-Ausfiihrungsgesetz ( EEA
     pay remuneration to a particular period of time — in this       implementation law ) of 27 April 1993 , BGBl I 512, 552 —
     case, 12 months — even in cases where the period in time        objects to the import of frozen mechanically recovered meat
     in question was exceeded not because of inertia                 in the case of an EC-authorized German establishment
     amounting to fault on the part of the employee                  which is in a position to carry out heat treatment within the
     concerned and, in particular, where the employee claims         meaning of the meat products Directive and obtains frozen
     compensation for damage on account of the                       mechanically recovered meat from an EC-authorized
     non-implementation or the belated implementation of             Belgian establishment in accordance with the designation of
     the Directive itself ?                                          the Belgian EC veterinarian in order to subject it to heat
                                                                     treatment within the meaning of the meat products
2 . In the event that question 1 is answered # in the                Directive and further process it, and if not is agreement with
     affirmative, must Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Directive be           the competent German veterinary authority necessary and
     considered valid in the light of the principle of equality      between whom ?
     and non-discrimination ?
                                                                     (J)  OJ No  121 , 29 . 7. 1964 , p . 2012 .
3 . Must paragraph 43 of the Judgment of the Court of                (2 ) OJ No  L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 69 .
                                                                     (3 ) OJ No  L 57, 2 . 3 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     Justice of 19 November 1991 in Joined Cases C-6/90
                                                                     (4 ) OJ No  L 26 , 31 . 1 . 1977, p . 85 .
     and C-9/90 Francovich and Others v. Italian Republic
     be interpreted as meaning that the substantive and


title: Case T-102/08 P: Appeal brought on 25 February 2008 by Asa Sundholm against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-27/07 Sundholm v Commission

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/38

         Appeal brought on 25 February 2008 by Asa Sundholm against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 13 December 2007 in Case F-27/07 Sundholm v Commission

   (Case T-102/08 P)
   (2008/C 107/64)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               quash the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2007 in Case F-27/07;

               —

               give judgment again and do what the first court ought to have done: annul the decision drawing up the applicant's Career Development Report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, adopted pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In her appeal, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) dismissing the action by which she sought the annulment of the Commission's decision drawing up her Career Development Report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, since the first report for that period was annulled by the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005 (1).
   In support of her appeal the appellant puts forward a single plea in law alleging an error of law, infringement of Article 233 EC and failure to comply with Community law in relation to the special obligation to state reasons.
   She claims that the CST erred in law by disregarding the scope of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005 and of Article 233 EC in holding that the Appointing Authority was not required, when taking the necessary measures to comply with the judgment and in taking account of its grounds and the time lapse between the annulled decision and that adopted pursuant to that judgment, to provide a more extensive statement of reasons in respect of the obligation on the administration to state reasons in a specific manner for a Development Report drawn up pursuant to a judgment of the Court of First Instance and, according to the appellant, out of time.
   In addition, she submits that the CST disregarded the force of res judicata with absolute effect of a judgment of the Court of First Instance by accepting that the mere deletion of the comments unlawfully taken into consideration constitutes a fair rectification of the evaluation of the appellant.

      (1)  Case T-86/04 Sundholm v Commission, not published in the ECR.


               3.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/14

         Action brought on 28 June 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-10/13)
   2013/C 287/10
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 28 June 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Maria Moustakali, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               declare that by failing to implement correctly Article 2(1)(a)-(d) and Article 2(2)(a)-(b) of the Act referred to at point 21b in Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation), as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act;

               2.

               order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

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

               —

               The application addresses the failure by Iceland to comply, no later than 20 August 2012, with reasoned opinion issued by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 20 June 2012 on the failure to correctly implement Article 2(1)(a)-(d) and Article 2(2)(a)-(b) of the Act referred to at point 21b in Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation) (‘the Directive’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1)(a)-(d) and Article 2(2)(a)-(b) of the Directive by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Directive within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-43/05: Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Camper, S.L., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/26

         Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Camper, S.L., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-43/05)
   (2005/C 106/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by Camper, S.L., established in Inca, Mallorca (Spain), represented by I. Temiñ o Ceniceros.
   JC AB established in Mölnlycke, (Sweden) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               accept the appeal against the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in the case R 170/2004-1, which rejected the appeal filed against the refusal of the Community trademark 1.954.601 in class 25;

               —

               declare the registration of the Community trademark no. 1.954.601 ‘BROTHERS BY CAMPER’ possible for all the products in class 25;

               —

               order that each party will bear his own costs, and the common expenses in half.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The figurative mark ‘BROTHERS by CAMPER’ for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 39 (leather, clothing, footwear, headgear, transport …) — application No 1 954 601

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               JC AB

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The Swedish, Finnish and Danish figurative mark ‘Brothers’ for goods in class 25 (clothing, footwear and headgear)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the opposition insofar as it was based on the earlier Swedish registration. Opposition upheld for part of the contested goods, namely ‘clothing, footwear, headgear’ in class 25, insofar as it was based on the Danish and Finish earlier registrations.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

               Pleas in law:

               The conflicting trademarks are not similar to such an extent that there exists a likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.


title: Joined Cases C-260/06 and C-261/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Montpellier, France) — Criminal proceedings against Daniel Escalier (C-260/06), Jean Bonnarel (C-261/06) (Plant protection products — Parallel imports — Marketing authorisation procedure — Whether permissible — Conditions — Observance of the principle of proportionality)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/18

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Montpellier, France) — Criminal proceedings against Daniel Escalier (C-260/06), Jean Bonnarel (C-261/06)
   (Joined Cases C-260/06 and C-261/06) (1)

   (Plant protection products - Parallel imports - Marketing authorisation procedure - Whether permissible - Conditions - Observance of the principle of proportionality)
   (2007/C 315/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour d'appel de Montpellier, France
   Parties in the main criminal proceedings
   Daniel Escalier (C-260/06), Jean Bonnarel (C-261/06)
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Montpellier — Interpretation of Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty and of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) — National legislation making the importation of a plant protection product from another Member State by a farmer solely for the needs of his own farm when that product already has marketing authorisation in another Member State granted in accordance with Directive 91/414/EEC subject to a simplified authorisation procedure designed to verify that the product meets identity conditions and subject to the payment of a charge of EUR 800
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:
   Declares that a Member State may subject to a simplified marketing authorisation procedure the parallel import of a plant protection product from another Member State in which it already has the benefit of such an authorisation, where the importation is made by a farmer solely for the needs of his farm, and the marketing authorisation thus granted is personal to each operator. It cannot be made a condition of that authorisation that the imported product be named with the brand name belonging to the operator concerned where he is a farmer who is making the parallel importation solely for the needs of his own farm. That authorisation cannot be subject to payment of a charge which bears no relation to the costs incurred by the control or the administrative steps needed for examination of the authorisation application. An appraisal of such costs as a fixed sum is however permissible provided that the principle of proportionality is observed.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-208/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 15 April 2013 — Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato v Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico
   (Case C-208/13)
   2013/C 207/18
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Defendants: Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico

      Questions referred

               1.

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

               2.

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

               3.

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


title: Case C-154/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2007 — 01051 Telekom GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany)

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 20 March 2007 — 01051 Telekom GmbH v Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany)
   (Case C-154/07)
   (2007/C 140/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesverwaltungsgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: 01051 Telekom GmbH

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Intervener: Deutsche Telekom AG
   Questions referred
   Are Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services (Competition Directive) (1) and Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in telecommunications with regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP) (Interconnection Directive) (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the national regulatory authority is precluded from requiring, in 2003, the operator of a network which is interconnected with a public local telecommunications network to pay a contribution to the market-dominant operator of the local network in order to compensate him for the deficit incurred as a result of providing the local loop?
   If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:
   Is the incompatibility with Community law of such a requirement, which is a provision of domestic law, to be taken into account by the national court in proceedings concerning the approval of a contribution by the interconnected network operator?

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ 1997 L 199, p. 32.