title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 April 2001 in Case C-123/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles: criminal proceedings against Christina Bellamy and English Shop Wholesale SA (Free movement of goods — Measures having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction — Marketing of bread — Advertising of foodstuffs)

text:
14.7.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 200/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Second Chamber)                                                             (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 April 2001
                          of 5 April 2001
                                                                           in Case C-123/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-100/00: Commission of the European Communi-                      the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles: criminal
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                           proceedings against Christina Bellamy and English Shop
                                                                                Wholesale SA (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Undisputed failure — Directive 73/23/EEC — Electric water                  (Free movement of goods — Measures having an effect
    heaters — Conditions not prescribed by the directive)                  equivalent to a quantitative restriction — Marketing of
                                                                                bread — Advertising of foodstuffs)
                          (2001/C 200/11)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/12)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                                             (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                              in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-100/00: Commission of the European Communities                   In Case C-123/00: reference to the Court under Article 234
(Agents: R.B. Wainwright and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic                EC from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Court
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by G. Aiello) — application for a              of First Instance, Brussels, Belgium), for a preliminary ruling in
declaration that, by subjecting electric storage water heaters             the criminal proceedings before that court against Christina
to safety conditions not prescribed by Council Directive                   Bellamy and English Shop Wholesale SA — on the interpret-
73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the                  ation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — the Court (Third
laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed            Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President
for use within certain voltage limits (OJ 1973 L 77, p. 29), and           of the Chamber, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges;
thus not recognising the presumption of compliance with the                D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
safety conditions of products manufactured in accordance                   has given a judgment on 5 April 2001, in which it has ruled:
with standard EN 60335-2-21, the Italian Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Community law — the Court                  1.    A rule of a Member State prohibiting the marketing of bread
(Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President of the                      and other bakery products whose salt content by reference to the
Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges;                      dry matter exceeds the maximum permitted level of 2 %, when
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                  applied to products which have been lawfully manufactured and
judgment on 5 April 2001, in which it:                                           marketed in another Member State, constitutes a measure
                                                                                having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction within the
1.    Declares that, by subjecting electric storage water heaters to             meaning of Article 28 EC.
      safety conditions not prescribed by Council Directive
      73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonisation of the                  Such a rule is likely to hinder trade between Member States and
      laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed            cannot be regarded as justified under Article 30 EC on the
      for use within certain voltage limits, and thus not recognising            ground of protecting public health.
      the presumption of compliance with the safety conditions of
      products manufactured in accordance with standard EN                 2.    Article 28 EC does not preclude a national rule which prohibits
      60335-2-21, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                  giving the impression that the branded product possesses
      obligations under that directive;                                          particular qualities when in fact all similar foodstuffs display
                                                                                the same qualities.
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                                 (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Case C-345/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands)) — J.A. van Delft, J.C. Ramaer, J.M. van Willigen, J.F. van der Nat, C.M. Janssen, O. Fokkens v College voor zorgverzekeringen (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Title III, Chapter 1 — Articles 28, 28a and 33 — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 29 — Freedom of movement for persons — Articles 21 TFEU and 45 TFEU — Sickness insurance benefits — Recipients of old-age pensions or pensions for incapacity for work — Residence in a Member State other than the State responsible for payment of the pension — Provision of benefits in kind in the State of residence with the cost borne by the State responsible for payment of the pension — No registration in the State of residence — Obligation to pay contributions in the State responsible for payment of the pension — Amendment to the national legislation of the State responsible for payment of the pension — Continuity of sickness insurance — Different treatment of residents and non-residents)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/17

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands)) — J.A. van Delft, J.C. Ramaer, J.M. van Willigen, J.F. van der Nat, C.M. Janssen, O. Fokkens v College voor zorgverzekeringen
   (Case C-345/09) (1)

   (Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Title III, Chapter 1 - Articles 28, 28a and 33 - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 29 - Freedom of movement for persons - Articles 21 TFEU and 45 TFEU - Sickness insurance benefits - Recipients of old-age pensions or pensions for incapacity for work - Residence in a Member State other than the State responsible for payment of the pension - Provision of benefits in kind in the State of residence with the cost borne by the State responsible for payment of the pension - No registration in the State of residence - Obligation to pay contributions in the State responsible for payment of the pension - Amendment to the national legislation of the State responsible for payment of the pension - Continuity of sickness insurance - Different treatment of residents and non-residents)
   2010/C 346/28
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: J.A. van Delft, J.C. Ramaer, J.M. van Willigen, J.F. van der Nat, C.M. Janssen, O. Fokkens

      Defendant: College voor zorgverzekeringen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep — Interpretation of the EC Treaty, Articles 28, 28a, 33, and Annex VI, R, (1)(a) and (b), of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), and Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159) — Recipients of pensions — Obligation to register with the healthcare insurance board in the Netherlands — Obligation to pay a contribution

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 28, 28a and 33 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, in conjunction with Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 311/2007 of 19 March 2007, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which recipients of pensions payable under the legislation of that State who reside in another Member State in which they are entitled under Articles 28 and 28a of Regulation No 1408/71 to the sickness benefits in kind provided by the competent institution of the latter Member State must pay, in the form of a deduction from their pension, a contribution in respect of those benefits even if they are not registered with the competent institution of their Member State of residence.

               2.

               Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which recipients of pensions payable under the legislation of that State who reside in another Member State in which they are entitled under Articles 28 and 28a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, to the sickness benefits in kind provided by the competent institution of the latter Member State must pay, in the form of a deduction from their pension, a contribution in respect of those benefits even if they are not registered with the competent institution of their Member State of residence.
               On the other hand, Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding such national legislation in so far as it induces or provides for — this being for the national court to ascertain — an unjustified difference of treatment between residents and non-residents as regards ensuring the continuity of the overall protection against the risk of sickness enjoyed by them under insurance contracts concluded before the entry into force of that legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.


title: Case C-136/15 P: Appeal brought on 20 March 2015 by Mohammad Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2015 in Case T-509/11 Makhlouf v Council

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/14

         Appeal brought on 20 March 2015 by Mohammad Makhlouf against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 21 January 2015 in Case T-509/11 Makhlouf v Council
   (Case C-136/15 P)
   (2015/C 311/19)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Mohammad Makhlouf (represented by: G. Karouni, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal;

               —

               state that the decisions and regulations of the Council of the European Union which are at issue in the present action are null and void in so far as they concern the appellant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the appellant’s costs relating the present appeal and to the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward a single plea in law alleging an error of law by the General Court in the application of the rules relating to the obligation imposed on the Council.
   More specifically, the appellant alleges that the General Court relied on the Council’s reasoning which is incomplete and unsubstantiated, which prevented him from identifying the actual and specific reasons for his listing. As a consequence, the appellant was not in a position to ensure an adequate defence, since he was unaware of the acts which were alleged against him concerning the repression of demonstrators, or the provision of support to the regime, or benefiting from the regime.
   In addition, the General Court manifestly misstated its obligation to provide reasons by trying to mitigate the Council’s failure to act, by relying, wrongly and for the first time in its judgment, on the fact that the appellant ‘benefits from … the …regime’.
   The fact that the Council’s statement of reasons did not set out clearly and explicitly the acts with which he is charged and which gave rise to the restrictive measure, seriously prejudiced the exercise of the appellant’s rights of defence.


title: Case T-100/14: Action brought on 12 February 2014 — Tecalan v OHIM (TECALAN)

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/51

         Action brought on 12 February 2014 — Tecalan v OHIM (TECALAN)
   (Case T-100/14)
   2014/C 112/66
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Tecalan GmbH (Grünberg, Germany) (represented by: S. Holthaus, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ensinger GmbH (Nufringen, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 December 2013 in Case R 2308/2012-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Tecalan GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: Wordmark TECALAN for goods in Class 17 (Community trade mark registration No 6 203 285)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ensinger GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark TECADUR for goods in Class 17

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-180/10: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Nickel Institute v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Classification, packaging and labelling of certain nickel carbonate compounds as dangerous substances — Directives 2008/58/EC and 2009/2/EC — 30th and 31st adaptations to technical progress of Directive 67/548/EEC — Partial refusal of access — Action for annulment — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/24

      Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Nickel Institute v Commission
      (Case T-180/10) (1)

      (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Classification, packaging and labelling of certain nickel carbonate compounds as dangerous substances - Directives 2008/58/EC and 2009/2/EC - 30th and 31st adaptations to technical progress of Directive 67/548/EEC - Partial refusal of access - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)
      (2012/C 331/45)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Nickel Institute (Toronto, Canada) (represented by: initially, K. Nordlander, lawyer, and H. Pearson, Solicitor, and, subsequently, K. Nordlander)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and P. Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents)

         Interveners in support of the applicant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski and M. Pere, acting as Agents) and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk, K. Petkovska, C. Meyer-Seitz and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 8 February 2010 (reference SG.E3/HP/psi — Ares(2010)65824) concerning the refusal to grant Nickel Institute full access to certain internal documents, in particular to opinions of the Commission’s Legal Service, drawn up in the context of two consecutive procedures which resulted in the classification of, inter alia, certain nickel carbonate compounds in Annex I to Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

                  2.

                  The European Commission shall bear its own costs as well as half of the costs incurred by Nickel Institute.

                  3.

                  Nickel Institute shall bear half of its own costs.

                  4.

                  The Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden shall bear their own respective costs.

         (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


C 21/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                   24.1.2004
       Removal from the register of Case C-308/02 (1)                       Removal from the register of Case C-461/02 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/58)                                                       (2004/C 21/61)
By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Court of          By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-308/02: Commission of the                from the register of Case C-461/02: Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                    European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.                                          (1) OJ C 44 of 22.2.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-342/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-48/03 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/59)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/62)
By order of 17 September 2003 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities          By order of 26 September 2003 the President of the Court of
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-342/02:              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.            from the register of Case C-48/03: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.
       Removal from the register of Case C-370/02 (1)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-190/03 (1)
                        (2004/C 21/60)
                                                                                (2004/C 21/63)
By order of 16 September 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-370/02: Commission of the                By order of 29 September 2003 the President of the Court of
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.                           Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     from the register of Case C-190/03: Portuguese Republic v
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 184 of 2.8.2003.


title: Case T-408/10: Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Roca Sanitario v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/55

         Action brought on 8 September 2010 — Roca Sanitario v Commission
   (Case T-408/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/88
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Roca Sanitario SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Folguera Crespo and M. Merola, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment in part of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of European Commission Decision C(2010) 4185 of 23 June 2010 in so far as they relate to Roca Sanitario;

               —

               in the alternative, reduction of the fine imposed on Roca Sanitario, as requested in the application, to the extent that the Court deems appropriate for the reasons set out or for such other reasons as the Court may determine;

               —

               in the further alternative, if the Court should give judgment in other actions brought by Roca France or Laufen Austria, reducing the fine imposed in the European Commission Decision of 23 June 2010 for infringements by these companies for which Roca Sanitario is jointly and severally liable, a declaration that Roca Sanitario is entitled to an equivalent reduction in the amount of the fine for which it is jointly and severally liable;

               —

               an order that the Commission should pay the costs incurred by Roca Sanitario.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The decision contested in these proceedings is the same as that contested in Case T-364/10 Duravit and Others v Commission and Case T-368/10 Rubinetteria Cisal v Commission.
   The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in those cases.
   The applicant submits, in particular, that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in determining that the applicant was jointly and severally liable for the infringements allegedly committed by Roca France and Laufe Austria, substantially exceeding the maximum amount of the fine that may be fixed under Article 23(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. (1)

   It is also submitted that the contested decision disregards, without giving reasons, the considerable amount of evidence adduced, which, for the purposes of the attribution of liability and calculation of the fine, rebuts the presumption that the applicant exercised decisive influence over Roca France and Laufen Austria.
   The applicant submits that the contested decision is contrary to the rights of the defence, since it attributed liability to the applicant on the basis of facts and subjective assessments not contained in the statement of objections, and in respect of which the applicant was not afforded the opportunity to give its views.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1.


title: Case T-151/05: Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Nederlandse Vakbond Varkenshouders and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/24

         Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Nederlandse Vakbond Varkenshouders and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-151/05)
   (2005/C 171/40)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought on 14 April 2005 by the Nederlandse Vakbond Varkenshouders (Netherlands Association of pig breeders), established in Lunteren (Netherlands); Marius Schep, residing in Lopik (Netherlands) and the Nederlandse Bond van Handelaren in Vee (Netherlands association of livestock dealers), established in the Hague (Netherlands), represented by Johannes Kneppelhout and Monique Charlotte van der Kaden.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application for annulment admissible and well founded;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants seek annulment of the Commission Decision of 21 December 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3605 — SOVION/HMG).
   The applicants submit that the Commission has infringed Articles 2, 6 and 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (1) (the EC Merger Regulation). In the applicants' view, the Commission unlawfully decided that the proposed concentration gave rise to no problems for competition on the market for the purchase of live pigs and sows for slaughter and that no dominant position arose on the relevant market. In that connection the applicants claim that in certain recitals to the contested decision the Commission applied a distorted definition of the relevant product market by including the market for sows in the market for pigs. In the applicants' view the Commission defined the geographical market incorrectly.
   The applicants also claim an infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons and of due care. According to the applicants the Commission gave the applicants insufficient opportunity to clarify their views and disregarded the information supplied by them.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1.


title: Case F-13/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/46

         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-13/14)
   2014/C 102/68
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the request for extension, for 2012/2013, of the prior authorisation granted for the reimbursement of the costs of speech therapy for the applicant’s son as part of the treatment of his serious illness.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 26 April 2013 rejecting the request for extension, for 2012/2013, of the reimbursement of the costs of speech therapy for the applicant’s son as part of the treatment of his serious illness;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


C 274/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   9.11.2002
      AB Svenska Spel contends that the company had no                           Removal from the register of Case C-413/00 ( 1)
      knowledge of the databases and obtained the data for the
      pools coupons from other sources and that what                                              (2002/C 274/42)
      appeared on the pools coupons was not the whole or a
      substantial part of the fixture lists. Fixtures Marketing
      Limited, for its part, argues that it was irrelevant to the        By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the First Chamber of
      assessment whether the data were obtained from sources             the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
      other than the fixture lists since the data originally came        removal from the register of Case C-413/00: Commission of
      from them.                                                         the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
5.    How should the terms ‘normal exploitation’ and
      ‘unreasonably prejudice’ in Article 7(5) be interpreted?           (1 ) OJ C 28, 27.1.2001.
      Fixtures Marketing Limited argues that AB Svenska Spel
      has repeatedly and systematically extracted and re-utilised
      the contents of the database for commercial purposes, in
      a manner which conflicts with a normal exploitation of
      that database and thereby unreasonably prejudiced the                      Removal from the register of Case C-303/01 ( 1)
      football leagues. AB Svenska Spel, for its part, contended
      that it is wrong to look at several pools coupons together                                  (2002/C 274/43)
      in making an assessment and disputes that their use is in
      breach of Article 7(5) of the directive.
                                                                         By order of 31 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
( 1) OJ L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20.                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-303/01: Alexandros K. Kefalas and Others v
                                                                         Elliniko Dimosio (the Greek State) and Others.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 56, 31.7.2002.
Removal from the register of Cases C-427/99 P ( 1) and
                           C-371/00 P (2)
                         (2002/C 274/41)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-44/02 (1)
By order of 1st August 2002 the President of the Court of                                         (2002/C 274/44)
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Cases C-427/99 P and C-371/00 P: RJB
Mining plc v Commission of the European Communities.                     By order of 2 July 2002 the President of the Court of Justice of
                                                                         the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                         register of Case C-44/02: Commission of the European Com-
( 1) OJ C 20, 22.1.2000.                                                 munities v Portuguese Republic.
( 2) OJ C 355, 25.11.2000.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ C 97, 20.4.2002.


title: Case C-198/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 1999/94/EC — New passenger cars — Consumer information on fuel economy and CO 2 emissions)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/21

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-198/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/94/EC - New passenger cars - Consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions)
   (2006/C 331/37)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to draw up or to transmit to the Commission the report required under Article 9 of Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars (OJ 2000 L 12, p. 16)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to transmit the report required under Article 9 of Directive 1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars, the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case T-235/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — CEDC International v OHIM — Underberg (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for three-dimensional Community mark — Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle — Earlier national three-dimensional mark — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 75, Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion granted by Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — CEDC International v OHIM — Underberg (Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle)
   (Case T-235/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for three-dimensional Community mark - Shape of a blade of grass in a bottle - Earlier national three-dimensional mark - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 75, Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Production of evidence for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion granted by Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 046/54)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: CEDC International sp. z o.o. (Oborniki Wielkopolskie, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, G. Rząsa and J. Mrozowski, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Underberg AG (Dietlikon, Switzerland) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck and J. Fuhrmann, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 March 2012 (Case R 2506/2010-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Przedsiębiorstwo Polmos Białystok (Spółka Akcyjna) and Underberg AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 March 2012 (Case R 2506/2010-4);

               2)

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by CEDC International sp. z o.o.;

               3)

               Orders Underberg AG to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case C-82/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 25 February 2009 — Municipality of Agios Nikolaos (Crete) v Minister for Rural Development and Food

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 25 February 2009 — Municipality of Agios Nikolaos (Crete) v Minister for Rural Development and Food
   (Case C-82/09)
   2009/C 102/24
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Municipality of Agios Nikolaos, Crete

      Defendant: Minister for Rural Development and Food

      Question referred

               1.

               Do the definitions of forest and wooded land in Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 apply to matters of protection and management, in general, of forest and wooded land as defined above, which are not expressly governed by the Regulation, but for which provision is made in the national legal order?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, may the national legal order also define as forest or wooded land land that is not forests or wooded land under the definitions given in Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003?

               3.

               If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, can the definition that may be given by the national legal order of forests and wooded land to include land that does not constitute forest or wooded land under the definitions in Article 3(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 2152/2003 differ from the definition in the above Regulation both as to the constituent elements included in the definition of forest or wooded land by the Regulation and as to the numerical determination of the dimensions of those elements that may be in common with the Regulation?
               Alternatively can that definition under the national legal order include constituent elements of the definition of forest or wooded land that are different from those included in the Regulation’s definition, but as to elements that it has in common with the Regulation its being permissible not to determine them numerically; if it does determine them numerically though, is it precluded from deviating from that (numerical determination) under the Regulation?


title: Case C-261/16 P: Appeal brought on 10 May 2016 by Kühne + Nagel International AG against the judgment delivered on 29 February 2016 in Case T-254/12 Kühne + Nagel International AG v European Commission

text:
               11.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/18

         Appeal brought on 10 May 2016 by Kühne + Nagel International AG against the judgment delivered on 29 February 2016 in Case T-254/12 Kühne + Nagel International AG v European Commission

   (Case C-261/16 P)
   (2016/C 251/19)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellants: Kühne + Nagel International AG, Kühne + Nagel Management AG, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd, Kühne + Nagel Ltd (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz and C. Klöppner, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) of 29 February 2016 in Case T-254/12;

               2.

               annul, pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, Article 1(1) and (2), Article 2 and Article 3 of the Commission decision of 28 May 2012 in Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding, C(2012) 1959 final, in so far as it concerns the appellants;

               3.

               annul or substantially reduce the fines imposed on the appellants in the aforementioned decision;

               4.

               order the Commission to pay the appellants’ costs in respect of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellants put forward five grounds of appeal:
   First, the General Court errs in law in assuming that the concerted practices relating to NES and AMS infringe Article 101 TFEU. Article 101 TFEU is not applicable to those concerted practices because they were not capable of affecting inter-State trade.
   Secondly, the calculation of the fine imposed on the appellants is marred by an error in law. Concerted practices contrary to the law on cartels were established in relation to individual charges (‘fees’ or ‘surcharges’). In that regard, the General Court ought to have calculated the fine to be imposed only on the basis of the turnovers redeemed with the respective fee. The General Court misjudged that, by including additional turnovers (in particular the freight rate) in the calculation of the fine, the Commission infringed recital 13 of the guidelines on the setting of fines. By implicitly also taking the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction to review as a basis for that method, the General Court itself thereby incorrectly exercised that power.
   Thirdly, the General Court infringed the principle of equal treatment. Unlike the other freight forwarders, K+N does not operate according to the consolidation model but, from an economic point of view, behaves as a classic intermediary in over 90 % of transactions. Due to the quite significant differences in the business model, the General Court ought to have proceeded differently and should not have treated different situations in the same way. In particular, the General Court should have annulled the Commission’s calculation of the fine and should have determined, as against the appellants, a fine only on the basis of the turnovers generated with the respective ‘fees’ or ‘surcharges’.
   Fourthly, the fine imposed by the General Court is grossly disproportionate. The fine approved by the General Court is clearly excessive and also cannot be justified on grounds of deterrence.
   Fifthly, the General Court did not observe the Air Transport Exemption and thus erroneously took, in relation to NES and AMS, the applicability of Article 101 TFEU as a starting point.


title: Case C-107/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2017 — UAB Aviabaltika v BAB Ūkio bankas

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 3 March 2017 — UAB Aviabaltika v BAB Ūkio bankas
   (Case C-107/17)
   (2017/C 161/14)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: UAB Aviabaltika

      Other party in the appeal in cassation: BAB Ūkio bankas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 4(5) of Directive 2002/47 (1) be interpreted as imposing an obligation on Member States to establish legal rules which provide that financial collateral is not included in the assets remaining after the insolvency of the collateral taker (a bank in the process of being wound up)? In other words, are Member States obliged to establish legal rules which require that a collateral taker (a bank) should be de facto able to obtain satisfaction of its claim, which is secured by financial collateral (money in an account of the bank and a right of claim to that money), despite the fact that the enforcement event occurred after the commencement of the proceedings for the winding-up of the collateral taker (the bank)?

               2.

               Should Article 4(1) and 4(5) of Directive 2002/47 be systematically interpreted as conferring on the collateral provider the right to demand that the collateral taker (the bank) should primarily obtain satisfaction of its claim, which is secured by financial collateral (money in an account of the bank and a right of claim to that money), by using the financial collateral, and accordingly as imposing an obligation on the financial collateral taker to give effect to such a demand despite the commencement of proceedings for its winding-up?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the negative, and the collateral provider satisfies the claim of the collateral taker, which is secured by the financial collateral, by using other assets of the collateral provider, should the provisions of Directive 2002/47, in particular Articles 4 and 8 thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the collateral provider should also have applied to it an exemption from equal treatment of the collateral taker’s (the bank’s) creditors in winding-up proceedings and that the collateral provider should, in order to recover the financial collateral, be granted priority over other creditors in winding-up proceedings?

      (1)  Directive 2002/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002 on financial collateral arrangements, OJ 2002 L 168, p. 43.


title: Case T-346/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2009 — IMS v Commission (Action for annulment and for damages — Directive 98/37/EC — Machinery bearing the CE marking — Hazards to the safety of persons — National prohibition measure — Opinion of the Commission declaring the measure to be justified — Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested measure — No need to adjudicate — Action for damages — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/26

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2009 — IMS v Commission
   (Case T-346/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment and for damages - Directive 98/37/EC - Machinery bearing the ‘CE’ marking - Hazards to the safety of persons - National prohibition measure - Opinion of the Commission declaring the measure to be justified - Action for annulment - Withdrawal of the contested measure - No need to adjudicate - Action for damages - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 90/42
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Industria Masetto Schio Srl (IMS) (Schio, Italy) (represented by: F. Colonna and T. Romolotti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and D. Lawunmi, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the Commission’s opinion C(2006) 3914 of 6 December 2006 concerning a prohibition measure adopted by the French authorities relating to certain IMS brand mechanical presses and, second, application for damages for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the adoption of that opinion

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for annulment.

               2.

               The remainder of the action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               3.

               The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of the interim proceedings. As to the remainder, the Commission and Industria Masetto Schio Srl (IMS) are ordered to bear half of the costs each.

               4.

               The French Republic is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-875/16: Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Falcon Technologies International v Commission

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/23

         Action brought on 12 December 2016 — Falcon Technologies International v Commission
   (Case T-875/16)
   (2017/C 046/26)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Falcon Technologies International LLC (Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: R. Sciaudone and G. Arpea, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the Commission to produce the final report;

               —

               annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action has been brought against the Commission’s decision of 14 October 2016 by which the Commission rejected the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to the document ‘Final report of an assessment of ICIM (NB 0425), carried out in the framework of the joint assessment process for notified bodies (DG (SANTE) 2015-7552)’.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on the three following pleas in law:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1)

                           —

                           In the first place, the applicant criticises the Commission’s incorrect application of the concept of ‘commercial interests’ as referred to in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The decision arising from the final report, adopted at the end of a comprehensive administrative process regarding ICIM’s compliance with the rules — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 920/2013 (2) — applicable to notified bodies, does not contain any information traditionally considered to be commercial. In any event, the alleged reputational damage resulting from disclosure of the final report would not in itself be sufficient to justify applying the derogation referred to in the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. In the second place, the contested decision does not show clearly, analytically and unequivocally the elements which led the Commission to consider that it would be detrimental to ICIM for FTI to have access to the final report, let alone provide information of the outcome of the weighing of the alleged commercial interests of ICIM and the interests of its commercial partners — including the applicant — in knowing the reliability and credibility of the notified body.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging incorrect exclusion of the overriding public interest and incorrect interpretation and application of the last part of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001

                           —

                           The contested decision must be annulled in so far as the Commission stated that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure and that there were no other public interests capable of taking precedence over the interests protected by the first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001. The applicant submits that, contrary to the case-law in Commission v EnBW, (3) the essential nature of the final report for the purposes of judicial protection before the national courts was neglected and was not regarded as an overriding public interest. In any event, the contested decision is also vitiated by the Commission’s failure to regard the protection of competition and of public health as overriding public interests.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging incorrect interpretation and application of Article 4(6) of Regulation No 1049/2001

                           —

                           Lastly, the Commission, in breach of the principle of proportionality, did not properly examine the possibility of granting partial access to the final report. The administrative decision taken by the Commission could have been redacted in so far as it contained sensitive or objectively secret data. There was nothing to prevent the preparation of a non-confidential version of the final report which would provide FTI with sufficient understanding of the assessment of ICIM without thereby revealing any (albeit unlikely) commercial secrets which the latter might have.

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

      (2)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 920/2013 of 24 September 2013 on the designation and the supervision of notified bodies under Council Directive 90/385/EEC on active implantable medical devices and Council Directive 93/42/EEC on medical devices (Text with EEA relevance).

      (3)  See judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 February 2014, Case C-365/12 P, Commission v EnBW, paragraph 107.


title: Case T-224/09: Order of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — CEVA v Commission (Action for annulment — Specific programme for research and technological development on energy, environment and sustainable development — Protop project — Subsidy contract — Demand for recovery of payments made on account pursuant to a contract for the financing of research — Sub-contracting — Enforcement order — Act not subject to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/20

         Order of the General Court of 13 September 2011 — CEVA v Commission
   (Case T-224/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Specific programme for research and technological development on energy, environment and sustainable development - Protop project - Subsidy contract - Demand for recovery of payments made on account pursuant to a contract for the financing of research - Sub-contracting - Enforcement order - Act not subject to review - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 331/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: J.-M. Peyrical, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Joris, Agent, assisted by E. Bouttier, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the enforcement order decision adopted by the Commission on 6 April 2009 by which the Commission called upon the applicant to refund all the payments made on account within the framework of a subsidy contract relating to a research project falling within the specific programme for research, technological development and demonstration on ‘Energy, environment and sustainable development’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case T-36/02: Action brought on 21 February 2002 by the Associazione Bancaria Italiana (ABI) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 97/14                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20.4.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                          Action brought on 21 February 2002 by the Associazione
                                                                          Bancaria Italiana (ABI) against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-36/02)
The applicant is a Japanese pharmaceutical company whose
subsidiary company manufactured D-pantolactone and
D-Calcium Pantothenate (Vitamin B5) and Pyridoxine                                                  (2002/C 97/28)
(Vitamin B6) during the relevant period. In the contested
Decision, the Commission imposed fines upon the applicant                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
and seven other companies for participating in eight distinct
secret market-sharing and price-fixing cartels affecting vitamin
products.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 21 February 2002 by the Associa-
                                                                          zione Bancaria Italiana (ABI), represented by Alberto Santa
The applicant does not dispute the Commission’s finding that              Maria, Claudio Biscaretti di Ruffia, Giuseppe Pizzonia and
the applicant had infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty                Marcello Valenti, lawyers.
and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by participating in
agreements affecting the Community and EEA markets for
Vitamins B5 and B6. Furthermore, the applicant does not                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
contest the facts found by the Commission. The applicant
seeks, however, the annulment of Article 3(f) of the Decision             —     annul the contested decision, issued on 11 December
imposing a fine of EUR 23.4 million upon the applicant or,                      2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
alternatively, a substantial reduction of that fine.                            on the grounds that it infringes essential procedural
                                                                                requirements and/or is unfounded, contradictory and/or
                                                                                lacking in a statement of reasons in accordance with
                                                                                Article 253 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Arti-
                                                                                cles 87 and 77 and with Council Regulation
The applicant submits inter alia that the Commission commit-                    No 659/1999, as expounded in the application;
ted a manifest error of judgement, erroneously applied the law
to the facts and infringed the Fining Guidelines                          —     alternatively, annul the decision in question wholly or in
                                                                                part pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 230 of
                                                                                the EC Treaty, inasmuch as it infringes or misapplies
                                                                                Article 87(1) or, in the further alternative, Article 87(3)(b)
—     by failing to place the applicant in a third category,                    or (c) of the EC Treaty, as expounded in the application;
      behind both Hoffmann-La Roche and BASF, in setting
      the starting point for the amount of the fine relating to
      the gravity of the infringement, or, alternatively and in           —     in the still further alternative, in the inconceivable event
      violation of the principle of equal treatment, in failing to              that the Court finds that the articles of Law No 461 of
      place the applicant in the second category with BASF;                     23 December 1998 and of Legislative Decree No 153 of
                                                                                17 May 1999, to which the contested decision relates,
                                                                                constitute a system of State aid which is incompatible
                                                                                with the common market, rule that the contested decision
—     by failing to treat the applicant’s less-than-full implemen-              of the Commission cannot have any retroactive effect;
      tation of the Vitamin B5 cartel as an attenuating circum-
      stance warranting a substantial reduction of the basic              subject to the reservation of all rights.
      amount of the fine;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—     by failing to grant to the applicant total immunity or a
      very substantial reduction of 75 % to 100 % of the fine
      for the Vitamin B5 infringement pursuant to Section B
                                                                          The present action is directed against the Commission’s
      of the Leniency Note on the basis of the applicant’s
                                                                          decision of 11 December 2001 concerning the system of State
      cooperation during the procedure or, alternatively, a
                                                                          aid implemented by Italy in favour of banks (C/54/A/2000/EC
      lesser reduction of the fine pursuant to Section C or
                                                                          [ex NN 70/2000]). That system of aid results from the
      Section D of the Leniency Notice.
                                                                          application of Law No 461 of 23 December 1998 (the ‘Legge
                                                                          Ciampi’) and of Legislative Decree No 153 of 17 May 1999,
                                                                          which lay down certain fiscal measures in relation to mergers
                                                                          between banking institutions and the transfer of capital goods
                                                                          and equipment, as part of the composite scheme for the
                                                                          privatisation of the sector.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.4.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 97/15
In support of its claims, the applicant association puts forward             laws. In that regard, it should be borne in mind that the
the following pleas and arguments:                                           ‘Legge Amato’ had been expressly considered by the
                                                                             defendant on various occasions in connection with
                                                                             Sicilian banks and the Banco di Napoli. In the latter
—    The fiscal measures in favour of mergers between banking                connection, the applicant pleads infringement of the
     institutions are not selective and do not constitute ad hoc             principles of the protection of legitimate expectations,
     aid. It should be borne in mind in that regard that the                 proportionality and legal certainty.
     introduction of fiscal incentives for mergers between
     banking institutions, as provided for under the Italian
     rules since 1990, the primary aim of which is to facilitate
     the privatisation of the sector, is solely intended to
     improve the functioning and flexibility of the tax rules
     with specific reference to the reality of the developments
     taking place in the Italian banking system.
                                                                       Action brought on 22 February 2002 by Groupe Danone
—    The fiscal measures provided for in favour of transfers of          against the Commission of the European Communities
     capital goods and equipment to institutions do not
     constitute aid, inasmuch as they do not involve any
     effective waiver by the State of the collection of tax                                     (Case T-38/02)
     revenues.
                                                                                (2002/C 97/29)
—    Neither of those types of fiscal measures distorts or
     threatens to distort competition. No preliminary investi-                            (Language of the case: French)
     gation whatever has been carried out by the Commission
     in relation to this point. It must be emphasised in that
     regard that, compared with their competitors in the
     Community, Italian banks are additionally penalised by a          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     higher tax burden which cannot easily be reconciled with          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     the tax regimes applying in other Member States.                  European Communities on 22 February 2002 by Groupe
                                                                       Danone, established in Paris, represented by Antoine Winckler
                                                                       and Marc Waha, lawyers.
—    The fiscal measures adopted in relation to mergers
     between banking institutions do not affect trade between
     Member States.                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       —     annul the decision in issue, pursuant to Article 230 of
—    No preliminary investigation has been carried out, and                  the EC Treaty;
     no statement of reasons has been given as to why this
     case does not concern de minimis aid.
                                                                       —     alternatively, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant by
                                                                             the decision, pursuant to Article 229 of the EC Treaty;
—    The defendant’s refusal to carry out any specific assess-
     ment of the Italian rules in question meant that it was not       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
     able to gain a better understanding of the scope and
     content of those rules; this would probably have enabled
     it to ascertain that they complied with Article 87(1) and
     (3) EC and correctly to assess the appropriateness of
     their intended purpose. In actual fact, the Commission            Pleas in law and main arguments
     understood neither the content nor the scope of the
     Italian rules forming the subject-matter of the case.
                                                                       The decision contested in the present case concerns two
                                                                       agreements relating to the Belgian beer market. The first was
—    In the contested decision, the Commission, when asses-            concluded between Interbrew N.V. and Brouwerijen Alken-
     sing the possible incompatibility of certain provisions of        Maes N.V. It included, in particular, a general ‘non-aggression
     the law in question for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC,         pact’, an agreement regarding retail prices and a market-
     wholly failed to take into account the significance, dealt        sharing arrangement in the hotel/restaurant/café sector. The
     with at length in the procedure before the Commission,            Commission has not censured Alken-Maes for having partici-
     of the common validity and continuity of the ‘Legge               pated in that agreement, but only its majority shareholder at
     Amato’ (Law No 218 of 30 July 1990) and the ‘Legge                the time, namely the applicant, on account of its own
     Ciampi’ in the context of the privatisation of the Italian        participation in the agreement and the fact that it formed an
     banking system, which was initiated by the first of those         economic entity with Alken-Maes.


title: Case T-27/17: Action brought on 18 January 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/29

         Action brought on 18 January 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament
   (Case T-27/17)
   (2017/C 070/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvillers, France) (represented by: J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of 22 November 2016 taken by the European Parliament to waive the applicant’s parliamentary immunity and to adopt report No A8-3018/2016 of Mr [X];

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay to Mr Jalkh the sum of EUR 8 000 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay to Mr Jalkh, by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs, the sum of EUR 5 000.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. The applicant is of the view that the Parliament misapplied the rules on immunity of Members of the French Parliament, and that it intentionally confuses Articles 8 and 9 of Protocol No 7 on the privileges and immunities of the European Union.

               2.

               Second plea in law, based on the necessary application of Article 9 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. According to the applicant, the French judicial authorities attribute to him statements which he did not make and which those authorities do not dispute come within the scope of his political activities.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the very concept of parliamentary immunity. The applicant takes the view that the European Parliament feigns ignorance of the fact that, in a democracy, parliamentary immunity offers a twofold immunity from legal proceedings: non-liability and freedom from criminal prosecution.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to follow the consistent decision-making practice of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament on:

                           —

                           freedom of expression

                           —

                              fumus persecutionis

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging failure to respect Community legal certainty and frustration of legitimate expectations.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of the independence of a Member of Parliament.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging breach of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament on the procedure capable of leading to the disqualification of a Member of Parliament from holding office (second subparagraph of Rule 3(4) (new) of those Rules). In the applicant’s view, even though an additional penalty of ineligibility is provided for under French law for the offence with which he is charged, the French Government sent no opinion to the President of the Parliament regarding that offence, as the procedure requires, and no competent body of the Parliament (the President, the Legal Committee, the Assembly) has asked the French Government to provide an explanation. The failure to comply with that essential procedural requirement is sufficient to vitiate the report and the contested decision.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging breach of the applicant’s rights of defence. He states that he was not invited when the vote was being taken in the Parliament’s plenary session on the request to waive his immunity. He thus had only ten minutes to present his defence, in regard to two cases concerning him, before the Committee on Legal Affairs, after the close of its business, at approximately 18:00.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, based on the absence of any basis for the charges or for the request for waiver of immunity, in that:

                           —

                           first of all, the applicant is neither the publishing director of the paper editions of the Front National (‘FN’) and its federations nor the publishing director of the websites of the FN federations; nor is he, consequently, the publishing director of the FN federation of 66 (Pyrénées-Orientales); thus, the report adopted by the Parliament is doubly mendacious in that regard;

                           —

                           next, he is not the author of the leaflet at issue; its authors, however, are known but were not charged when his immunity was waived;

                           —

                           furthermore, the act of bringing charges against elected representatives on the ground that they call in their programme for a change of existing legislation is an extremely dangerous antidemocratic aberration since it undermines freedom of opinion in a particularly serious way.


title: Case C-324/12: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Novontech-Zala kft v LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 — European order for payment procedure — Opposition lodged out of time — Article 20 — Review in exceptional cases — No  ‘extraordinary’ or ‘exceptional’ circumstances)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/45

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Novontech-Zala kft v LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH
   (Case C-324/12) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Opposition lodged out of time - Article 20 - Review in exceptional cases - No ‘extraordinary’ or ‘exceptional’ circumstances)
   2013/C 225/78
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Novontech-Zala kft

      Defendant: LOGICDATA Electronic & Software Entwicklungs GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Handelsgericht Wien — Interpretation of Article 20(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1) — Opposition to a European order for payment made after the time limit as a result of an error on the part of the lawyer of the party concerned — Possible existence of a case of force majeure or of extraordinary circumstances

      Operative part of the order

   The failure to observe the time-limit for lodging a statement of opposition to a European order for payment, by reason of the negligence of the defendant’s representative, does not justify a review of that order for payment, since such a failure to observe the time-limit does not constitute extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(1)(b) or exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.


title: Case T-492/14: Action brought on 30 June 2014 — La Perla v OHIM — Alva Management (LA PERLA)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/52

         Action brought on 30 June 2014 — La Perla v OHIM — Alva Management (LA PERLA)
   (Case T-492/14)
   2014/C 282/68
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: La Perla sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: M. Siciarek, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alva Management GmbH (Icking, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 April 2014 given in Case R 626/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant and the other party, should it intervene, to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LA PERLA’ for goods and services in Classes 5 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 9 8 54  225

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘PERLAMAR’ registered as Community and national trade mark

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case C-52/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 2 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Ion Beregovoi

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Revere (Italy) lodged on 2 February 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Ion Beregovoi
   (Case C-52/12)
   2012/C 98/33
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Revere

      Party to the main proceedings

   Ion Beregovoi

      Question referred

               1.

               In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third-country national illegally staying in a Member State may be liable to a fine, for which home detention is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, solely as a consequence of that person’s illegal entry and stay, even before any failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?

               2.

               In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 2, 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC preclude the possibility that, subsequent to the adoption of the directive, a Member State may enact legislation which provides that a third-country national illegally staying in that Member State may be liable to a fine, for which an enforceable order for expulsion with immediate effect is substituted by way of criminal-law sanction, without respecting the procedure and rights of the foreign national laid down in the directive?

               3.

               Does the principle of sincere cooperation established in Article 4(3) TEU preclude national rules adopted during the period prescribed for transposition of a directive in order to circumvent or, in any event, limit the scope of the directive, and what measures must the national court adopt in the event that it concludes that there was such an objective?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Case C-118/12 P: Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Enviro Tech Europe Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-291/04: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd, Enviro Tech International, Inc. v European Commission

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/6

         Appeal brought on 5 March 2012 by Enviro Tech Europe Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 December 2011 in Case T-291/04: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd, Enviro Tech International, Inc. v European Commission
   (Case C-118/12 P)
   2012/C 227/10
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Enviro Tech Europe Ltd (represented by: C. Mereu, K. Van Maldegem, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Enviro Tech International, Inc.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-291/04 as regards the Appellant's claim for damages; and

               —

               declare the Respondent liable for damages suffered by the Appellant; or

               —

               alternatively, refer the case back to the General Court to rule on the Appellant's claim for damages; and

               —

               order the Respondent to pay all the costs of these proceedings (including the costs before the General Court).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that, in dismissing its application for damages on the grounds that the Appellant had failed to establish the existence of unlawful action on the part of the Commission, the General Court breached European Union law. In particular, the Appellant contends that the General Court committed an error in its interpretation of the Judgment of the Court in Case C-425/08 and, as a consequence, it made an error in law in failing to assess the third part of the Appellant's first plea of illegality in relation to ‘normal handling or use’ and concluding that the application for damages should be dismissed.
   For these reasons the Appellant claims that the judgment of the General Court in Case T-291/04 should be set aside as regards the Appellant's claim for damages and the Respondent should be declared liable for damages suffered by the Appellant.


title: Case T-48/12: Action brought on 6 February 2012 — Euroscript — Polska v Parliament

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/19

         Action brought on 6 February 2012 — Euroscript — Polska v Parliament
   (Case T-48/12)
   2012/C 109/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Euroscript — Polska Sp. z.o.o. (Cracow, Poland) (represented by: J.-F. Steichen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

               —

               First, annul the decision of 9 December 2011;

               —

               In the alternative, annul call for tenders No PL/2011/EP;

               —

               Order the Parliament to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               Reserve to the applicant all other rights, pleas and actions.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging abuse of power in that the European Parliament did not communicate, or communicated late, the information requested by the applicant following the reallocation of the contract in the context of a procurement procedure concerning the provision of translation services into Polish. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the rules and principles of the European Union, including the Financial Regulation, (2) and the Regulation implementing the Financial Regulation, (3) the successful tenderer being debarred when it requested the re-evaluation of its tender and the Parliament therefore no longer being entitled to revisit its decision to award the contract to the applicant without either suspending or annulling the call for tenders.

      (1)  OJ 2011/S 56-090361.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

      (3)  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).


26.4.2003              EN                   Official Journal of the European Union                                   C 101/31
        Removal from the register of Case C-331/02 ( 1)             from the register of Case C-339/02: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                        (2003/C 101/53)
                                                                    (1 ) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.
By order of 31 January 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-331/02: Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland.
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-344/02 ( 1)
( 1) OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/55)
        Removal from the register of Case C-339/02 ( 1)             By order of 6 February 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                        (2003/C 101/54)                             from the register of Case C-344/02: Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities v French Republic.
By order of 13 February 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal             (1 ) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Joined Cases C-372/09 and C-373/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — proceedings brought by Josep Peñarroja Fa (Article 43 EC — Freedom of establishment — Article 49 EC — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Court experts who are professional translators — Exercise of official authority — National legislation reserving appointment as a court expert for persons enrolled in registers established by the national judicial authorities — Justification — Proportionality — Directive 2005/36/EC — Concept of ‘regulated profession’ )

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — proceedings brought by Josep Peñarroja Fa
   (Joined Cases C-372/09 and C-373/09) (1)

   (Article 43 EC - Freedom of establishment - Article 49 EC - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Court experts who are professional translators - Exercise of official authority - National legislation reserving appointment as a court expert for persons enrolled in registers established by the national judicial authorities - Justification - Proportionality - Directive 2005/36/EC - Concept of ‘regulated profession’)
   2011/C 139/07
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties in the proceedings brought by

   Josep Peñarroja Fa

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (France) — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 45 EC, 49 EC and 50 EC — National legislation under which appointment as a court expert is reserved for persons enrolled in registers established by the national judicial authorities and that enrolment is subject to conditions relating to age, competence, character and independence, but under which no account need be taken of the fact that the applicant has been recognised as an expert by the judicial authorities of another Member State and no alternative arrangements are introduced for assessing compliance with those conditions — Whether that legislation is compatible with the provisions of primary law relating to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A duty entrusted by a court, in relation to specific matters within the context of a dispute before it, to a professional who has been appointed as a court expert translator constitutes the provision of services for the purposes of Article 50 EC (now Article 57 TFEU).

               2.

               The activities of court experts in the field of translation, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, do not constitute activities which are connected with the exercise of official authority for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 45 EC (now the first paragraph of Article 51 TFEU).

               3.

               Article 49 EC (now Article 56 TFEU) precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which enrolment in a register of court expert translators is subject to conditions concerning qualifications, but the interested parties cannot obtain knowledge of the reasons for the decision taken in their regard and that decision is not open to effective judicial scrutiny enabling its legality to be reviewed, inter alia, as regards its compliance with the requirement under European Union law that the qualifications obtained and recognised in other Member States must have been properly taken into account.

               4.

               Article 49 EC (now Article 56 TFEU) precludes a requirement, such as that laid down in Article 2 of Law No 71-498 of 29 June 1971 on court experts, as amended by Law No 2004-130 of 11 February 2004, to the effect that no person may be enrolled in a national register of court experts as a translator unless he can prove that he has been enrolled for three consecutive years in a register of court experts maintained by a cour d’appel, where it is found that such a requirement prevents, in the consideration of an application by a person established in another Member State who cannot prove that he has been so enrolled, the qualification obtained by that person and recognised in that other Member State from being duly taken into account for the purposes of determining whether — and, if so, to what extent — that qualification may attest to skills equivalent to those normally expected of a person who has been enrolled for three consecutive years in a register of court experts maintained by a cour d’appel.

               5.

               The duties of court expert translators, as discharged by experts enrolled in a register such as the national register of court experts maintained by the Cour de cassation, are not covered by the definition of ‘regulated profession’ set out in Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case C-139/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Caixa d’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona v Generalidad de Cataluña (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Sixth VAT Directive  — Exemptions  — Transactions concerning the sale of shares and involving the transfer of interests in immovable property  — Imposition of an indirect tax distinct from VAT  — Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU  — Purely internal situation)

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/5

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Caixa d’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona v Generalidad de Cataluña
   (Case C-139/12) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Transactions concerning the sale of shares and involving the transfer of interests in immovable property - Imposition of an indirect tax distinct from VAT - Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Purely internal situation))
   2014/C 142/05
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Caixa d’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona

      Respondent: Generalidad de Cataluña

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Art. 13B(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption of transactions involving shares referred to in Art. 13B(d)(5) — Exception — Transactions concerning the sale of shares and involving the transfer of interests in immovable property — National law subjecting the acquisition of the majority of the capital of a company the assets of which are essentially shares in immovable property to an indirect tax distinct from VAT

      Operative part of the judgment

   Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991, must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision, such as Article 108 of Law 24/1988 on the Stock Market (Ley 24/1988 del Mercado de Valores) of 28 July 1988, as amended by Law 18/1991 on Income Tax payable by Natural Persons (Ley 18/1991 del Impuesto sobre la Renta de las Personas Físicas) of 6 June 1991, which makes the acquisition of the majority of the capital of a company, the assets of which essentially comprise immovable property, subject to an indirect tax other than value added tax, such as that at issue in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 174, 16.6.2012.


title: Case C-360/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/18

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-360/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 294/29)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross and M. Velardo, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. De Bellis and I. Braguglia, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose, within the period prescribed, Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court (Fifth Chamber):

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12. 11. 2005.