title: Case T-256/02: Action brought on 27 August 2002 by "I" against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
C 274/26              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      9.11.2002
Action brought on 27 August 2002 by ‘H’ against the                       In support of his claims the applicant alleges breach of the
       Court of Justice of the European Communities                       principle of proper administration and of the duty to have
                                                                          regard for officials’ welfare, misuse of powers in the circum-
                                                                          stances of the case and breach of the Charter of Fundamental
                         (Case T-255/02)                                  Rights of the European Union.
                         (2002/C 274/46)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Action brought on 27 August 2002 by ‘I’ against the
                                                                                Court of Justice of the European Communities
An action against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                (Case T-256/02)
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 27 August 2002 by ‘H’,
represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.                                         (2002/C 274/47)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
—     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
                                                                          An action against the Court of Justice of the European
      14 May 2002;
                                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
                                                                          of the European Communities on 27 August 2002 by ‘I’,
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of                 represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.
      compensation for the damage he has suffered and will in
      future suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all
      necessary reservations, together with default interest at           The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
      the rate of 10 % per annum from 4 October 1999 until
      the date of payment;                                                —     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
                                                                                14 May 2002, notified 27 May 2002, concerning the
                                                                                claim for compensation for non-material loss and damage
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                of any kind suffered by the applicant as a result of disease;
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the applicant, by way of
                                                                                compensation for the damage he has suffered and will in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 future suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all
                                                                                necessary reservations, together with default interest at
                                                                                the rate of 10 % per annum from 4 October 1999 until
                                                                                the date of payment;
The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
that institution’s refusal to compensate him for the non-                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
material damage allegedly suffered as a result of his occu-
pational disease, which has been recognised in a decision taken
by the appointing authority on 31 May 2001, on the basis of
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and under which he received           Pleas in law and main arguments
EUR 35 192,16 compensation.
                                                                          The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
In this action the applicant, on the basis of Article 288 EC              that institution’s refusal to compensate him for the non-
(formerly Article 215 of the EC Treaty), draws attention to the           material damage allegedly suffered as a result of his occu-
non-material difficulties he has undergone since his exposure             pational disease, which has been recognised on the basis of
to asbestos on the premises of his institution. Those difficulties        Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and for which he has
take the form inter alia of physical and psychological problems           received compensation.
in his relations with his colleagues and in his family and social
relationships. The applicant claims that in its decision of
14 May 2002 dismissing his request for compensation for the               The pleas in law put forward in support of this action are
non-material loss and damage in question, the defendant                   similar to those put forward in Case T-255/02 H v Court of
disregarded the fact that his occupational disease had non-               Justice.
medical sequelæ in his life and confined itself to dealing with
one part only of his pathology.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen by order of that court of 10 February 1995 in the case of Landeshauptstadt Hannover v. Almut Sattler (Case C-345/96)

text:
7 . 12 . 96              EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 370/ 7
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      2 . Does at least the principle, to be regarded as part of
                                                                               Community law, that national law is to be interpreted
                                                                               in a Community manner consistent with EC law,
According to the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC                      require national provisions on equal treatment with
Treaty, a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be                   respect to benefits from occupational pension schemes
achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed.                     to be interpreted and applied in harmony with the
It follows that each Member State is obliged to realize the                    requirements and limitations ( prohibition of retroactive
objective of the directive prior to the expiry of the time                    effect) of Community law ?
limit prescribed therein, that is to say, to transpose it into
domestic law in such a way that its practical effect is
achieved in full . The Federal Republic of Germany has
failed to discharge that obligation to transpose the Directive
in full within the time-limit laid down in Article 34 ( 1 )
thereof ( 14 June 1994 ).
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
                                                                         Eerste Aanleg, Brussels, by judgment of that court of
(M OJNoL 199 , 9 . 8 . 1993 , p . 1 .                                    11 October 1996 in the case of Belgisch Interventie- en
                                                                                Restitutiebureau against Prolacto NV
                                                                                ( Case C-346/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/ 17 )
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen by order of that court
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of 10 February 1995 in the case of Landeshauptstadt
                      Hannover v. Almut Sattler                          European Communities by judgment of the Rechtbank van
                                                                         Eerste Aanleg ( Court of First Instance ), Brussels, of
                           ( Case C-345 /96                              11 October 1996 , received at the Court Registry on
                             ( 96/C 370/ 16 )                            21 October 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau against Prolacto
                                                                         NV on the following question:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities . by an order of the Third Chamber
of the Landesarbeitsgericht Niedersachsen (Higher Labour                 In the context of a tender for the supply of skimmed milk
Court of Lower Saxony) of 10 February 1995 , which was                   power as food aid on the basis of Commission Regulations
                                                                         ( EEC ) Nos 345/87 ( ] ) and 1358/87 ( 2 ) of 3 February 1987
received at the Court Registry on 18 October 1996, for a
                                                                         and 15 May 1987, respectively, and the associated
preliminary ruling in the case of Landeshauptstadt
                                                                         tendering securities lodged pursuant to Article 12 of
Hannover v. Almut Sattler on the following questions :
                                                                         Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1354/83 ( 3 ) of 17 May
                                                                         1983 , may a legal person who subsequently failed to fulfil
1 . ( a ) Does Community law require precedence of                       its obligations and did not effect delivery be also the subject
            application or validity ( under the second paragraph         of a claim for payment of compensation on the part
            of Article 5 and Article 189 of the EC Treaty ) over         of the Belgisch Interventie- en Restitutiebureau ( Belgian
            national provisions of the Member States which               intervention and restitution agency ) pursuant to Article 25
            could or would be applicable, by way of                      ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1354/83 when all the tendering
            concurrence of claims, to the same factual situation         securities have been declared forfeit to that agency ?
            and with the same aim of supporting claims to
            equal treatment in occupational pension schemes,             (!) OJ No L 34 , 3 . 2 . 1987, p . 8 .
            as for example in Germany — generally — the                  ( 2 ) OJNoL 131 , 15 . 5 . 1987, p . 1 .
            employment law principle of equal treatment or —             ( 3 ) OJNoL 142 , 17. 5 . 1983 , p . 1 .
            specifically — paragraph 2 ( 1 ) of the Beschafti
            gungsforderungsgesetz ( Employment Promotion
            Law ) 1985 ?
      ( b ) Does the precedence of Community law in such a
            conflict, where Community law confers benefits               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
            under occupational pension schemes only if and in            Superior de Justicia de Madrid, Sala de lo Contencioso
            so far as they are attributable to periods of                Administrativo, Sección Primera, by order of that court of
            employment after 17 May 1990, whereas the                    3 July 1996 in the case of Soldred SA v. Administración
            national provisions regulate the same factual                                          General del Estado
            situation differently in that they do not exclude                                         Case C-347/96 )
            retroactive effect, apply generally ?
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/ 18 )
      (c ) Does such precedence exist only if the economic
            objective of Article 119, which exists alongside the
            social objective, namely the creation of equal                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            competitive opportunities, is specifically affected ?         European Communities by order of the Tribunal Superior


title: Case C-51/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2011 — Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie eV v Sonnthurn Vertriebs GmbH

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2011 — Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie eV v Sonnthurn Vertriebs GmbH
   (Case C-51/11)
   2011/C 139/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schutzverband der Spirituosen-Industrie eV

      Defendant: Sonnthurn Vertriebs GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the concept of health in the definition of the expression ‘health claim’ in Article 2(2)(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods, (1) last amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 116/2010 of 9 February 2010, (2) also cover general well-being?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
               Is a statement made in commercial communications, whether in the labelling, presentation or advertising of foods, which are to be to be delivered as such to the final consumer, intended to cover at least also general well-being or merely health-related well-being where it refers to one of the functions mentioned in Article 13(1) and Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 in the manner described in Article 2(2)(5) thereof?

               3.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative and a statement in the sense described in Question 2 is intended to cover at least also health-related well-being:
               Having regard to the freedom of expression and information under Article 6(3) TEU, in conjunction with Article 10 of the ECHR, is it consistent with the Community law principle of proportionality to include in the scope of the prohibition laid down in the first sentence of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 a statement that a particular beverage containing more than 1,2 % by volume of alcohol does not place a strain on or adversely affect the body or its functions?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9.

      (2)  OJ 2010 L 37, p. 16.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 February 2004 in Case C-18/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbejdsret ): Danmarks Rederiforening v LO Landsorganisationen i Sverige (Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where the harmful event occurred — Measure taken by a trade union in a Contracting State against the owner of a ship registered in another Contracting State)

text:
3.4.2004                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 85/7
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                             composed of: V. Skouris, acting on behalf of the President of
                                                                             the Sixth Chamber, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), J.-
                                                                             P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and F. Macken, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has
                                                                             given a judgment on 5 February 2004, in which it has ruled:
                        of 5 February 2004
                                                                             1.   (a)   Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention of 27 September
                                                                                1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments
                                                                                in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the
in Case C-18/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling                                     Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
from the Arbejdsret ): Danmarks Rederiforening v LO                                     Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom
               Landsorganisationen i Sverige (1)                                        of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention
                                                                                of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the
                                                                                Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
(Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in                                   Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996
matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Place where                          on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic
the harmful event occurred — Measure taken by a trade                                   of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, must be
union in a Contracting State against the owner of a ship                                interpreted as meaning that a case concerning the legality
            registered in another Contracting State)                                    of industrial action, in respect of which exclusive jurisdic-
                                                                                tion belongs, in accordance with the law of the Contracting
                                                                                State concerned, to a court other than the court which has
                                                                                jurisdiction to try the claims for compensation for the
                          (2004/C 85/09)                                                damage caused by that industrial action, falls within the
                                                                                definition of >tort, delict or quasi-delict.
                   (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                                (b) For the application of Article 5(3) of the Brussels
                                                                                Convention to a situation such as that in the dispute in
                                                                                the main proceedings, it is sufficient that that industrial
                                                                                action is a necessary precondition of sympathy action
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                which may result in harm.
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (c)   The application of Article 5(3) of the Brussels Convention
                                                                                is not affected by the fact that the implementation of
                                                                                industrial action was suspended by the party giving notice
                                                                                pending a ruling on its legality.
In Case C-18/02: Reference to the Court under the Protocol of
3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters                     2.   In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings,
by the Arbejdsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the                       Article 5(3) must be interpreted as meaning that the damage
proceedings pending before that court between Danmarks                            resulting from industrial action taken by a trade union in a
Rederiforening, acting on behalf of DFDS Torline A/S, and LO                      Contracting State to which a ship registered in another
Landsorganisationen i Sverige, acting on behalf of SEKO                           Contracting State sails can be regarded as having occurred in
Sjöfolk Facket för Service och Kommunikation, on the                              the flag State, with the result that the shipowner can bring an
interpretation of Article 5(3) of the abovementioned Conven-                      action for damages against that trade union in the flag State.
tion of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978
L 304, p. 1, and — amended version — p. 77), by the                          (1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), by the Convention of
26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and
the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) and by the
Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the
Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom


title: Order of the Court of 6 December 2000 in Case C-252/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil Mixte d'Appel d'Expression Française de l'Ordre des Médecins Vétérinaires): in the case of Dr Jean-Michel Vandeweerd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
C 200/26                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                                         ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 6 December 2000
                                                                                of 13 December 2000
in Case C-252/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil Mixte d’Appel d’Expression Française de                        in Case C-39/00 P: Services pour le Groupement d’Acquis-
l’Ordre des Médecins Vétérinaires): in the case of Dr Jean-                itions SARL (SGA) v Commission of the European Com-
                      Michel Vandeweerd (1)                                                            munities (1)
                                                                           (Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Complaint
    (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)                 — Action for declaration of failure to act, for annulment
                                                                           and for compensation — Appeal in part clearly inadmissible
                                                                                and in part clearly unfounded)
                          (2001/C 200/45)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/46)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                             (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-39/00 P: Services pour le Groupement d’Acquisitions
                                                                           SARL (SGA), in judicial liquidation, a company incorporated
                                                                           under French law, established in Istres, France, represented by
In Case C-252/00: reference to the Court under Article 234                 J.C. Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
EC from the Conseil Mixte d’Appel d’Expression Française de                Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de
l’Ordre des Médecins Véterinaires (French language Joint                   Bourbon — application for an appeal against the judgment of
Appeal Board of the Association of Veterinary Surgeons,                    the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First
Belgium), a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                  Chamber) of 13 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-189/95, T-
before that court in the case of Dr Jean-Michel Vandeweerd —               39/96 and T-123/96 SGA v Commission [1999] ECR II-3587,
on the interpretation of Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now                  seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
Article 81 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                   proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola,               represented by G. Marenco, Principal Legal Adviser, and
M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Presidents of Chambers,                        F. Siredey-Garnier — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen,         of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-
F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and              P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric,
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;                  Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass,
R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 6 December 2000,                 Registrar, has given an Order on 13 December 2000, in which
in which it has ruled:                                                     it:
                                                                           1.    Dismisses the appeal;
The question submitted for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil Mixte
d’Appel d’Expression Française de l’Ordre des Médecins Véterinaires,
by decision of 10 June 2000, is inadmissible.                              2.    Orders Services pour le Groupement d’Acquisitions SARL
                                                                                (SGA) to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.


title: Case C-201/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany)) — Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt (Directive 2003/30/EC — Promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport — Directive 2003/96/EC — Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity — Blend of vegetable oil, additives and fuel — Biofuels — National rules — Tax exemption — Replacement of the exemption by an obligation to maintain a minimum biofuel content in fuels — Conformity with Directives 2003/30/EC and 2003/96/EC — General principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/19

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany)) — Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt
   (Case C-201/08) (1)

   (Directive 2003/30/EC - Promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport - Directive 2003/96/EC - Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity - Blend of vegetable oil, additives and fuel - Biofuels - National rules - Tax exemption - Replacement of the exemption by an obligation to maintain a minimum biofuel content in fuels - Conformity with Directives 2003/30/EC and 2003/96/EC - General principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)
   2009/C 267/33
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Darmstadt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hessisches Finanzgericht (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 3 of Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (OJ 2003 L 123, p. 42) and the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation — National legislation replacing, before the time-limit laid down by the previous legislation, rules providing for tax exemptions for biofuels forming part of a fuel blend with an obligation to add biofuels to conventional fuels, with the effect of placing producers who had taken advantage of those exemptions at an economic disadvantage.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3 of Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings which exclude, from the tax exemption scheme provided for in those rules for biofuels, a product, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which is composed of a blend of vegetable oil, fossil gas oil and specific additives.

               2.

               The general principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations do not in principle preclude a Member State, with regard to a product such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, from withdrawing, before the expiry date initially laid down in the national rules, a tax exemption scheme which applied to such products. In any event, such a withdrawal does not require the presence of exceptional circumstances. However, it is for the national court to consider, in the context of an overall assessment in the specific case, whether those principles have been respected in the main proceedings by taking account of all relevant circumstances relating to the case.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 September 2001 in Case C-417/99: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure by a State to comply with its obligations — Directive 96/62/EC — Ambient air quality assessment and management — Failure to designate the competent authorities and bodies responsible for implementing the directive)

text:
C 303/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        27.10.2001
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                                of 13 September 2001
                                                                           in Case C-417/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (Failure by a State to comply with its obligations —
                                                                           Directive 96/62/EC — Ambient air quality assessment
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                   and management — Failure to designate the competent
                                                                           authorities and bodies responsible for implementing the
                                                                                directive)
                     of 13 September 2001
in Case C-375/99: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the                                                (2001/C 303/05)
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Expenditure for 1996
          and 1997 — Public storage of bovine meat)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                          (2001/C 303/04)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           In Case C-417/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Dı́az
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Abad) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
                   in the European Court Reports)                          designate the competent authorities and bodies referred to in
                                                                           the first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 96/62/EC
                                                                           of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and
In Case C-375/99: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: M. López-Monı́s                management (OJ 1996 L 296, p. 55), the Kingdom of Spain
Gallego) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                  has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under that directive —
J. Guerra Fernández) — application for the partial annulment              the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,
of Commission Decision 1999/603/EC of 28 July 1999                         President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),
excluding from Community financing certain expenditure                     P. Jann, L. Sevón and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; P. Léger,
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of               Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                      on 13 September 2001, in which it:
(EAGGF) (OJ 1999 L 234, p. 6), in respect of the financial
adjustment imposed of 5 % of certain expenditure declared by
Spain under tariff headings 2111 (technical expenditure),
2112 (financial expenditure) and 2113 (other expenditure),                 1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period
corresponding to the sector for public storage of bovine meat                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,                         designate the competent authorities and bodies referred to in the
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rappor-                        first paragraph of Article 3 of Council Directive 96/62/EC of
teur), S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geel-                     27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and
hoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                         management, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
judgment on 13 September 2001, in which it:                                      obligations under that directive;
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
( 1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 217, 3.9.2005

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/41

         (2005/C 229/84)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 217, 3.9.2005

   Past publications

      OJ C 205, 20.8.2005

      OJ C 193, 6.8.2005

      OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

      OJ C 171, 9.7.2005

      OJ C 155, 25.6.2005

      OJ C 143, 11.6.2005

   These texts are available on:

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

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


title: Case C-236/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 4 May 2012 — Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Argeș v SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — Sucursala Pitești, Alin Iulian Matei, Petruța Florentina Matei

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Argeș (Romania) lodged on 4 May 2012 — Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Argeș v SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — Sucursala Pitești, Alin Iulian Matei, Petruța Florentina Matei
   (Case C-236/12)
   2012/C 235/12
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Argeș

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Comisariatul Județean pentru Protecția Consumatorilor Argeș

      Respondents: SC Volksbank România SA, SC Volksbank România SA — Sucursala Pitești, Alin Iulian Matei, Petruța Florentina Matei

      Question referred

   Having regard to the fact that, in accordance with Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC, (1) assessment of the unfair nature of contractual terms must relate neither to the definition of the main subject-matter of the agreement nor to the adequacy [sic] of the price and remuneration, on the one hand, as against the services or goods supplied in exchange, on the other, in so far as these terms are in plain intelligible language,
   and
   given that, under Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2008/48/EC, (2) the definition provided in Article 3(g) of that directive of ‘the total cost of the credit to the consumer’, which includes all the fees which the consumer is required to pay in connection with the credit agreement, does not apply for the purposes of determining the subject-matter of a credit agreement secured by a mortgage,
   can the concepts of ‘main subject-matter’ and/or of ‘price’, to which Article 4(2) of Directive 93/13/EEC refers, be interpreted as also covering, among the elements which make up the consideration owed to the credit institution, the global effective annual rate of a credit agreement, formed in particular of the interest rate, whether fixed or variable, the bank charges and other costs included and defined in the agreement?

      (1)  Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993, L 95, p. 29).

      (2)  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008, L 133, p. 66).


title: Case C-554/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Gorizia by order of that Court of 27 November 2003 in the case of Azienda Agricola Tomadin Silvano and AGEA

text:
21.2.2004              EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 47/25
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del                  2.    Which place should be considered as the place where or
Giudice di Pace di Gorizia by order of that Court of                         from which such an employee in fact performs most of
27 November 2003 in the case of Azienda Agricola                             his duties for his employer when the duties under the
                  Tomadin Silvano and AGEA                                   contract of employment are to be performed partly on
                                                                             the ground (airport) of a Contracting State and partly
                         (Case C-554/03)                                     on an aircraft which has the nationality of another
                                                                             Contracting State which also recruited the employee?
                          (2004/C 47/41)
                                                                       (1) OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice di
Pace di Gorizia (Magistrate, Gorizia) of 27 November 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 29 December 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda Agricola Tomadin
Silvano and AGEA on the following question:
Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March           Action brought on 8 January 2004 by the Commission
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/921 (2) of              of the European Communities against the Republic of
28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the                                                  Austria
additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
an administrative penalty with the result that producers are                                     (Case C-4/04)
liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been
exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
                                                                                (2004/C 47/43)
(1) OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 405, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 January
                                                                       2004 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Karen Banks and Dr Claudia Schmidt, Agents,
                                                                       with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
travail de Charleroi, Section de Charleroi, by order of that
Court of 15 December 2003 in the case of Magali Warbecq
against RYANAIR Ltd, a company incorporated under                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
                              Irish law
                                                                       1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
                         (Case C-555/03)                                     the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                             provisions necessary to implement Directive 98/44/EC (1)
                                                                             of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July
                          (2004/C 47/42)                                     1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inven-
                                                                             tions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under that directive; and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal du travail de            2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of the case.
Charleroi, Section de Charleroi, of 15 December 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 24 December 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Magali Warbecq against RYANAIR Ltd, a
company incorporated under Irish law on the following
questions:                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    For the purposes of Article 19(2) of Council Regulation
      No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and               The period within which the directive was to be implemented
      the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil            expired on 30 July 2000.
      and commercial matters (1), what are the relevant criteria
      for determining the Contracting State on the territory of
      which an employee habitually performs his work, when             (1) OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13.
      that employee is employed as a member of the air crew
      of an undertaking engaged in international air passenger
      transport?


title: Case C-299/01: Action brought on 26 July 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 289/14               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.10.2001
Action brought on 26 July 2001 by the Commission of                      The financial supervision of an insurance undertaking pursuant
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                    to Article 13(1), as amended by Article 9 of Directive
                           of Germany                                    92/49/EEC, including that of the business it carries on either
                                                                         through branches or under the freedom to provide services, is
                                                                         the sole responsibility of the home Member State. Conse-
                         (Case C-298/01)                                 quently, the host Member State (in this case Germany) is in
                                                                         particular not entitled to subject insurance undertakings
                                                                         operating under the freedom to provide services or through
                         (2001/C 289/27)                                 branches to requirements which go beyond those linked to the
                                                                         authorisation by the home Member State and encroach
                                                                         upon the competence of that State with regard to financial
                                                                         supervision, for example the requirement to use premiums or
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                    parts thereof in a quite specific way.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 26 July 2001 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service,          (1) OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 1.
and Christina Tufvesson, Commission Legal Adviser, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
Guerrero, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    declare that, by adopting and retaining Para-                      Action brought on 26 July 2001 by the Commission of
      graph 257(2a)(5) of the Fifth Book of the Sozialgesetz-            the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
      buch (Code of Social Law), in the version at BGBl (Federal                                   Luxembourg
      Official Journal) 1999 I, p. 2626, the Federal Republic of
      Germany is failing to fulfil its obligations under the EC                                  (Case C-299/01)
      Treaty and Council Directive 92/49/EEC (1) of 18 June
      1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions relating to direct insurance                                     (2001/C 289/28)
      other than life assurance and amending Directives
      73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-life insurance
      Directive), in particular Articles 5, 9(1) and (2) and 54(1)       An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
      and (2);                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 26 July 2001 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by H. Michard, acting as Agent,
2.    order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     Declare that, by maintaining a condition relating to
                                                                               duration of residence in Luxembourg for the granting of
                                                                               a guaranteed minimum income, the Grand Duchy of
In the Commission’s view, the system chosen by the Federal                     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Republic of Germany under which an employer’s subsidy                          Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the
towards certain employees’ private health insurance is made                    Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
conditional on the insurance undertaking (i) not engaging in                   for workers within the Community (1) and Article 43 of
health insurance together with other classes of insurance or                   the EC Treaty; and
(ii) using the part of the premiums in respect of which
employees receive a subsidy for health insurance only is                 —     Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
contrary to the requirement of mutual recognition of con-
ditions of access and to the system of supervision introduced
by Directive 92/49/EEC. The requirements in Para-
graph 257(2a)(5) of the Fifth Book of the Code of Social Law
are designed to replace actual control, under which health               Pleas in law and main arguments
insurance and other classes of insurance were previously
separated, with a provision which in essence retains the
former rule, thus has the same practical consequences and,               The Commission takes the view that entitlement to a guaran-
furthermore, is contrary to the Third Non-Life Insurance                 teed minimum income constitutes a social advantage within
Directive.                                                               the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
 ---pagebreak--- 13.10.2001              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 289/15
and that Article 43 EC prohibits any discrimination on the                       down in Article 37 EC. In the present case, the Com-
basis of nationality which hinders access to or pursuit of self-                 mission has taken six months to adopt measures, which
employment. Accordingly, the imposition of a condition                           were purportedly urgent, in order to palliate a serious
relating to duration of residence in the Grand Duchy (be it the                  and unforeseen situation, which shows that the measures
10 years required by the Law of July 1986 or the 5 years by                      were not urgent at all and, in those six months, the
the new law of April 1999) for the granting of a guaranteed                      Council could have adopted the necessary conservation
minimum income to nationals of the other Member States is                        measures without it being necessary for the Commission
contrary to the principle of equal treatment, as enshrined in                    to use a legislative power whose scope is very restricted
Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of move-                        and pre-determined. Moreover, there are measures in the
ment for workers as well as in Article 43 of the EC Treaty with                  contested provision which are not strictly urgent and
regard to self-employed workers.                                                 exceptional, such as the increase in mesh sizes provided
                                                                                for in Article 2 and the designation of ports for landing
                                                                                catches, provided for by Article 12. Furthermore, the
                                                                                contested regulation contains no provision whatever
(1) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.
                                                                                limiting its period of validity to less than six months, so
                                                                                that its temporal application is unlimited and it must be
                                                                                presumed to remain in force until a subsequent provision
                                                                                should repeal it.
Action brought on 2 August 2001 by Kingdom of Spain
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            —    Breach of the principle of non-discrimination: Article 2(2)
                                                                                of the contested regulation provides for rules for vessels
                           (Case C-304/01)                                       of less than 12 metres in length overall which return to
                                                                                port within 24 hours of their most recent departure, from
                                                                                port which are different to those applied to other vessels.
                           (2001/C 289/29)                                       That measure harms almost exclusively or, at least, to a
                                                                                much greater extent, the Spanish fishing fleet which, in
                                                                                those areas in which the urgent measures apply, consists
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        entirely of vessels of more than 12 metres in length,
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     which are at sea for more than a day, whereas the other
Communities on 2 August 2001 by Kingdom of Spain,                                Member States do have in their fishing fleets vessels under
represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado,                    12 metres which are covered by the derogation. Such
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish                         discrimination against the Spanish fishing feet is not
Embassy, 4-6, boulevard E. Servais.                                              objectively justified because there is no link between size
                                                                                of mesh and length of vessel. Moreover, it just so happens
                                                                                that small vessels, because they are at sea less time,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      fish in areas close into shore where there are greater
                                                                                concentrations of juveniles and, therefore, their fishing
                                                                                activities can affect much more clearly and directly the
—     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1162/2001 (1) of                       conservation of threatened fish stocks.
      14 June 2001 establishing measures for the recovery of
      the stock of hake in ICES sub-areas III, IV, V, VI and VII
      and ICES divisions VIII a, b, d, c and associated conditions
      for the control of activities of fishing vessels;
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                            —    Lack of a statement of reasons: There is nothing in the
                                                                                contested regulation which makes it possible to know,
                                                                                clearly and unequivocally, what reasons the Commission
                                                                                had for establishing the derogation under Article 2(2).
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Incorrect legal basis and lack of competence of the
      Commission: The contested regulation has as its legal
      basis Article 15(1) of Council Regulation 3760/92,                    (1) OJ L 159, 15.6.2001, p. 4.
      establishing a Community system for fisheries and aqua-               (2) OJ L 389, 31.12.1992, p. 1.
      culture (2). That provision confers on the Commission
      limited legislative power which that institution may use
      only in such cases and under such conditions as provided
      in that provision, whilst general powers to legislate reside
      with the Council in accordance with the procedure laid


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2000 in Case T-262/99: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of the European Communities (Action for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
C 149/32                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
Registrar, made an order on 7 March 2000, the operative part                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of which is as follows:
                                                                                of 24 February 2000
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed by Industrie des
Poudres Sphériques to the intervener Péchiney Électrométallurgie is       in Case T-162/99: Luigia Dricot-Daniele and others v the
fixed at FRF 207 507,50.                                                           Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 54 of 4.3.1995.                                                   (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of contested measure
                                                                                — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-162/99: Luigia Dricot-Daniele, residing in Overijse
                         of 24 February 2000                               (Belgium), Patricia De Palma, residing in Brussels, and Claudine
                                                                           Hamptaux, residing in Brussels, officials of the Commission of
in Case T-104/99: AS Bolderaja and Others v Council of                     the European Communities, represented by L. Vogel , of the
                       the European Union (1)                              Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the Chambers of C.
                                                                           Kremer, of Faltz et Associés, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, against
(Action for annulment — Dumping — Regulation (EC) No                       Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
           194/1999 — Time-limit — Inadmissibility)                        sia and J. Currall ) — application for annulment of the elections
                                                                           held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1999 to the Staff Committee of
                                                                           the local Brussels section and the appointments made by that
                           (2000/C 149/61)
                                                                           committee following those elections — the Court of First
                                                                           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
                     (Language of the case: English)                       President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung,
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 February 2000, the
                                                                           operative part of which is as follows:
In Case T-104/99: AS Bolderaja, established in Riga (Latvia),
Zaklady Plyt Pilśniowych SA w Krośnie Odrzańskim, estab-
                                                                           1. There is no need to adjudicate on this application.
lished in Krosno Odrzanskie (Poland), Alpex-Karlino SA w
Karlino, established in Karlino (Poland) and Zaklady Plyt                  2. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings
Pilśœniowych SA w Czarnej Wodzie, established in Czarna                        including the costs relating to the application for interim
Woda (Poland) represented by V.N. Akritidis, of the Athens                      measures.
Bar, and T. Pick, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and
Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt v Council of the European                (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Union (Agents: S. Marquardt, H.-J. Rabe, G.M. Berrisch and
H.-G. Kamann) — application for the annulment of Council
Regulation (EC) No 194/1999 of 25 January 1999 imposing
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of hardboard orig-
inating in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and
Russia and definitively collecting the provisional duties
imposed (OJ 1999 L 22, p. 16) — the Court (Fifth Chamber,
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Extended Composition), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas,
President, P. Lindh, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 February                                     of 16 March 2000
2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           in Case T-262/99: Anthony Goldstein v Commission of
1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.                                                the European Communities (1)
2. There is no need to adjudicate on the Commission’s application
                                                                           (Action for compensation — Manifest inadmissibility —
     for leave to intervene.
                                                                                Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
3. The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and, jointly
     and severally, to pay the costs of the Council save for those                                   (2000/C 149/63)
     relating to the preparation and submission of its defence.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.99.
                                                                           In Case T-262/99: Anthony Goldstein, residing in Harrow,
                                                                           Middlesex (United Kingdom), represented by R. St. John
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 149/33
Murphy, Solicitor, 3 King’s Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London             — in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed in Article
v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal)                    5(1) of that decision to the sum of EUR 1 000;
— application for compensation for the non-material loss
alleged to have been suffered by the applicant as a result of the
Commission’s alleged failure to provide a national court with
information in accordance with its obligations under the EC              — order the Commission to pay the costs.
Treaty — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos and P.
Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given an order on
16 March 2000, in which it orders the following:
                                                                         Pleas in law and principal arguments
1. The action is dismissed.
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicant is a sectorial association established in 1918 to
                                                                         protect the common interests of stockkeeping wholesalers of
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                 electrotechnical products. In 1995 it had 52 members, includ-
                                                                         ing various larger undertakings and numerous smaller whole-
                                                                         salers. In response to a complaint submitted in 1991, the
                                                                         Commission in 1999 adopted a decision in which it found
                                                                         that the applicant had infringed Article 81(1) EC by entering
                                                                         into a collective exclusive dealing arrangement intended to
                                                                         prevent supplies to non-members of the FEG, on the basis of
                                                                         an agreement with the Nederlandse Agentenvereniging op
                                                                         Elektrotechnisch Gebied (‘NAVEG’) and of practices concerted
                                                                         with suppliers not represented in NAVEG. The Commission
                                                                         further found that the applicant had infringed Article 81(1) EC
Action brought on 17 January 2000 by Nederlandse                         by directly and indirectly restricting the freedom of its
Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektro-                   members to determine their selling prices independently. On
technisch Gebied against the Commission of the European                  account of those infringements, a fine of EUR 4.4 million was
                          Communities                                    imposed on the applicant. The applicant seeks annulment of
                                                                         the decision on the following grounds. Since it took the
                                                                         Commission more than eight years to adopt that decision, it
                           (Case T-5/00)                                 infringed the principle that decisions must invariably be given
                                                                         within a reasonable period. Furthermore, the rights of the
                                                                         defence have been violated, in that the Commission bases
                         (2000/C 149/64)                                 various essential elements of its argument on documents
                                                                         which were not mentioned in the statement of objections. In
                                                                         addition, the applicant claims that the Commission has
                                                                         infringed Article 81(1) EC in a number of respects. First, it
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         based its decision on an incorrect delineation of the relevant
                                                                         market. Second, it wrongly inferred from the available factual
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                material that the applicant had infringed the notification rules
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               by entering into a collective exclusive dealing arrangement
European Communities on 17 January 2000 by Nederlandse                   intended to prevent supplies to non-members of the FEG. It
Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotech-               also wrongly inferred from the factual material that, by
nisch Gebied (FEG), established in The Hague, represented by             concluding horizontal pricing agreements, FEG had infringed
E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.B. Noë, of the law firm De Brauw            the notification rules. In the alternative, the applicant claims
Blackstone Westbroek NV, The Hague, with an address for                  that the Commission has infringed Article 15(2) of Regulation
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue               No 17, by imposing on the applicant, in the light of the
Goethe.                                                                  circumstances of the case, a fine of EUR 4.4 million.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) OJ L 39 of 14.2.2000.
— annul the Commission’s decision of 26 October 1999 (1)
    concerning a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC
    Treaty in Case IV/33.884 — Nederlandse Federatieve
    Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Ge-
    bied and Technische Unie;
— in the alternative, annul Article 5(1) of that decision;


title: Order of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber) of 1 April 2004 in Case C-216/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): DLD Trading Company Import-Export, spol. s.r.o. v Republic of Austria (Preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/31

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

   (Third Chamber)
   of 1 April 2004
   in Case C-216/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): DLD Trading Company Import-Export, spol. s.r.o. v Republic of Austria (1)

   (Preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)
   (2004/C 118/57)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-216/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between DLD Trading Company Import-Export, spol. s.r.o. and Republic of Austria, on, first, the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 3316/94 of 22 December 1994 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 355/94 by introducing a temporary derogation applicable to Austria with regard to exemptions from customs duties (OJ 1994 L 350, p. 12), and of Council Regulation (EC) No 2744/98 of 14 December 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 355/94 and extending the temporary derogation applicable to Germany and Austria (OJ 1994 L 345, p. 9), in the light of the ‘provisions of Community law relating to exemptions from customs duties, in particular Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 [of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of exemptions from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1)] and the principle of the Customs union’, and of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, and, second, the validity of Council Directive 69/169/EEC of 28 May 1969 on the harmonisation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to exemption from turnover tax and excise duty on imports in international travel (OJ 1969 L 133, p. 6) and of ‘the national provisions transposing it’ in view of ‘the purposes of harmonising turnover tax and excise duty within the Member States, liberalising and facilitating travel to and from non-member countries and aligning exemptions from tax and from customs duty in the context of travel’ – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 1 April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by order of 7 April 2003 is inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 18. 10. 2003.


title: Case T-386/09: Order of the General Court of 24 August 2010 — Grúas Abril Asistencia v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Rejection of complaint — Measure against which actions may not be brought by individuals — Inadmissibility)

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/23

         Order of the General Court of 24 August 2010 — Grúas Abril Asistencia v Commission
   (Case T-386/09) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Competition - Rejection of complaint - Measure against which actions may not be brought by individuals - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 274/35
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: R.L. García García, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and F. Castilla Contreras, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission letter of 7 August 2009 informing the applicant that the facts on which it has lodged the complaint do not permit the conclusion that there is an infringement of Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC and that no action will be taken regarding its complaint.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed.

               2.

               Grúas Abril Asistencia, SL, shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 21.11.2009.


title: Case C-154/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tributário de Primeira Instancia do Porto, 2.° Juízo — 1.a Secção, by decision of that court of 7 November 2000 in the case of Caves Costa Verde, L.da against Fazenda Pública

text:
C 289/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.10.2001
Involvement of a holding company in the management of its                 Appeal brought on 14 May 2001 by the Commission of
subsidiaries must be regarded as an economic activity within the          the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
meaning of Article 4(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of          ed on 6 March 2001 by the Court of First Instance of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added          T-331/94 IPK-München GmbH v Commission of the
tax: uniform basis of assessment, only in so far as it entails carrying                       European Communities
out transactions which are subject to VAT by virtue of Article 2 of
that directive.
                                                                                (Case C-200/01 P)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/15)
(1) OJ 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                          An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities on 14 May 2001 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities, represented by Jürgen Grun-
                                                                          wald, Legal Adviser, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with
                                                                          an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Gérard
                                                                          Berscheid, Legal Adviser to the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, against the judgment
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribu-                 delivered on 6 March 2001 by the Court of First Instance of
tário de Primeira Instancia do Porto, 2.o Juı́zo —                       the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case
1.a Secção, by decision of that court of 7 November 2000                 T-331/94 IPK-München GmbH v Commission of the European
in the case of Caves Costa Verde, L.da against Fazenda                    Communities (1).
                               Pública
                          (Case C-154/01)                                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          1.    annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                         (2001/C 289/14)                                        6 March 2001 in Case T-331/94 and dismiss the action;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    2.    in the alternative:
European Communities by decision of the Tribunal Tributario                     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance cited in
de 1.a Instância do Porto 2.o Juı́zo — 1.a Secção (Tax Court of                paragraph (1) and refer the case back to the Court of First
First Instance, Oporto, Second Division, First Chamber) of                      Instance;
7 November 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
on 9 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Caves
Costa Verde, L.da against Fazenda Pública on the following               3.    order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.
question:
Are the charges assessed under Decree-laws No 26317, of                   Pleas in law and main arguments
30 January 1936, No 40037, of 18 January 1955 and No 321-
A/86, of 25 September 1986 compatible with the Sixth
                                                                          —     Incomplete legal assessment of the basis of the contested
Directive (1), having regard to the fact that according to the
                                                                                decision. Infringement of the prohibition of unjust enrich-
appellant, the charges should be assessed on the basis of
                                                                                ment.
turnover whereas the Instituto da Vinha e do Vinho argues
that they constitute a marketing charge on the sales of wine in
bulk?                                                                     —     Incorrect legal assessment of the collusion between
                                                                                Mr Tzoanos, the Greek undertaking 01-Pliroforiki and
                                                                                the respondent.
In the absence of sufficient information in the order for
reference, the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber), by order of              —     Incorrect legal assessment of the Commission’s proposal
11 July 2001, declared the reference for a preliminary ruling                   to include the Studienkreis undertaking in the project.
manifestly inadmissible.
                                                                          —     Failure to examine the legal consequences of a breach of
                                                                                bona fides. As a legal consequence of its assessment the
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                    Court of First Instance ought not to have set aside the
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to                  contested decision in its entirety but only in so far as the
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                  Commission had thereby refused to participate financially
    basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).                            in the expenditure which the respondent had lawfully
                                                                                incurred with regard to the sixth and seventh phases of
                                                                                the project but which it had been unable to complete for
                                                                                lack of time.


title: Case T-302/09: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — CNIPT v Commission (State aid — Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented — Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/42

         Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — CNIPT v Commission
   (Case T-302/09) (1)

   ((State aid - Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented - Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 175/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Comité national interprofessionnel de la pomme de terre (CNIPT) (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, subsequently by: B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, and finally by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008 concerning State aid No 561/2008, on the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 October 2003 in Case T-47/01: Co-Frutta Soc. coop. rl v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Refusal — Authorship rule — Misuse of powers)

text:
10.1.2004                EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 7/31
1.    The contested decision of the Commission 2001/146/EC of                   2.    Dismisses the rest of the action as unfounded.
      20 September 2000 relating to a proceeding under Article 81
      of the EC Treaty (COMP/36.653 — Opel) is annulled in so
                                                                                3.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as those of
      far as it establishes the existence of a restrictive supply measure
                                                                                the Commission.
      contrary to Article 81(1) EC.
2.    The amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by Article 3
                                                                                (1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.
      of the contested decision is reduced to EUR 35 475 000.
3.    The application is dismissed as to the remainder.
4.    The applicants are ordered to bear four fifths of their own costs
      and four fifths of the Commission’s costs; the Commission is
      ordered to bear one fifth of its own costs and one fifth of the
      applicants’ costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                                                                                of 23 October 2003
                                                                                in Case T-255/01: Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light
                                                                                Fixtures Co. Ltd and Zhejiang Yankon Group Co. Ltd v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Anti-dumping — Determination of normal value — Mar-
                         of 16 October 2003                                     ket-economy treatment — Analogue country — Article 2(7)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 384/96)
in Case T-47/01: Co-Frutta Soc. coop. rl v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)                                                              (2004/C 7/56)
(Action for annulment — Access to documents — Decision
94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Refusal — Authorship rule                                                 (Language of the case: English)
                         — Misuse of powers)
                             (2004/C 7/55)
                                                                                In Case T-255/01, Changzhou Hailong Electronics & Light
                                                                                Fixtures Co. Ltd, established at Changzhou (China), Zhejiang
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                            Yankon Group Co. Ltd, formerly Zheijang Sunlight Group Co.
                                                                                Ltd, established at Shangyu (China), represented by P. Bentley
                                                                                QC, and F. Ragolle, lawyer, v Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Agents: S. Marquardt, and G. M. Berrisch), supported by
In Case T-47/01, Co-Frutta Soc. coop. rl, established in Padua                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreu-
(Italy), represented by W. Viscardini, M. Paolin and S. Donà,                   schitz, T. Scharf and S. Meany): Application for annulment of
lawyers, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      Council Regulation (EC) No 1470/2001 of 16 July 2001
P. Stancanelli, P. Aalto and P. Wölker): Application for                        imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting defini-
annulment of the Commission’s decision contained in the                         tively the provisional duty imposed on imports of integrated
letters of 31 July 2000 from the Directorate-General for                        electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating in the
Agriculture and 5 December 2000 from the Secretary-General                      People’s Republic of China (OJ 2001 L 195, p. 8), the Court
of the Commission, by which access to the documents sought                      of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition),
by the applicant in connection with the arrangements for                        composed of: R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh,
importing bananas was partly refused, the Court of First                        J.D. Cooke, J. Pirrung and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers,
Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. García-Valdecasas,                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González,                23 October 2003, in which it:
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 16 October 2003, in which it:
                                                                                1.    Dismisses the action.
1.    Dismisses the application for annulment of the decision
      contained in the letter from DG Agriculture of 31 July 2000               2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the
      as inadmissible.                                                                costs incurred by the Council.


title: Case T-85/13: Action brought on 14 February 2013 — K-Swiss/OHIM — Künzli SwissSchuh (Trainer with five stripes)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/17

         Action brought on 14 February 2013 — K-Swiss/OHIM — Künzli SwissSchuh (Trainer with five stripes)
   (Case T-85/13)
   2013/C 123/28
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: K-Swiss, Inc. (California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and K. Tasma, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Künzli SwissSchuh AG (Windisch, Switzerland)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), dated 30 October 2012 in Case R 174/2011-2; and

               —

               Order the defendant and, as appropriate, the intervener to bear the coasts of the action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark representing a trainer with five stripes — Community trade mark registration No 4 771 978

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds of the request for a declaration of invalidity were those laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested Community trade mark invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-73/12: Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/29

         Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Einhell Germany and Others v Commission
   (Case T-73/12)
   2012/C 109/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Einhell Germany AG (Landau an der Isar, Germany), Hans Einhell Nederlands BV (Breda, Netherlands), Einhell France SAS (Villepinte, France) and Hans Einhell Oesterreich GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: R. MacLean, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the application admissible;

               —

               Partially annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8831, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8825, Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2011) 8828 and Article 1 of Commission Decision K(2011) 8810, all four decision being dated 6 December 2011, insofar as they only grant partial refunds of the anti-dumping duties paid by the applicants on imports of Chinese-made compressors applied under Council Regulation (EC) No 261/2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on certain compressors originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2008 L 81, p. 1);

               —

               Order maintenance in force of the contested decisions until the European Commission has adopted measures necessary to comply with any judgment of the Court; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the legal costs and expenses of the procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in applying an appropriate and reasonable unrelated EU importer profit margin for the purposes of establishing the revised dumping margin applicable to the imports in question, thereby failing to establish a reliable export price for the unrelated supplier when calculating the correct anti-dumping refund amounts leading to infringements of Articles 2(9) and 18(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009. (1)

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment by deducting anti-dumping duties as a cost in the calculation of the unrelated supplier’s export price thereby failing to establish a reliable dumping margin for the purpose of calculating the revised dumping margin and the correct anti-dumping refund amounts and in doing so violated Articles 2(9), 2(11) and 11(10) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) 1225/2009 on Protection Against Dumped Imports From Countries not Members of the European Community, OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51.