title: ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 19 November 1998 in Case C-149/98 P: Anne-Marie Toller v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)

text:
13.3.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 71/3
The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the              Appeal brought on 11 December 1998 by EugeÂnio
reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Oberlan-              Branco, Lda against the judgment delivered on
desgericht Köln by order of 8 May 1998.                              15 September 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court
                                                                     of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                     T-142/97 between EugeÂnio Branco, Lda and the
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-453/98 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/05)
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 September
                                                                     1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                        (First Chamber)
                                                                     of the European Communities in Case T-142/97 between
                     of 19 November 1998                             EugeÂnio Branco Lda and the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
in Case C-149/98 P: Anne-Marie Toller v Commission of                the European Communities on 11 December 1998 by
                 the European Communities (1)                        EugeÂnio Branco Lda, represented by Bolota Belchior, of
    (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)              the Vila Nova de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, 6 Rue
                         (1999/C 71/04)                              Heine.
                (Language of the case: French)                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ð quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance
          published in the European Court Reports)                       under appeal;
In Case C-149/98 P: Anne-Marie Toller, a former official             Ð uphold all the claims made at first instance; and
of the Commission of the European Communities, residing
in Brussels, represented by Benoît Lombart and Eric
Boigelot, both of the Brussels Bar, with an address for              Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz,
2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim Ð appeal against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of the European                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 19 February 1998 in
Case T-142/96 Toller v Commission [1998] ECR-SC
II-179, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other           Ð Failure to comply with and infringement of Article 5(4)
party to the proceedings being the Commission of the                     of Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 (1): Paragraphs 47
European Communities, represented by Julian Currall,                     and 49 of the judgment under appeal constitute an
Legal Adviser, and Christine Berardis-Kayser, of its Legal               error of assessment by the lower court. It is not
Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck Ð                factually correct to claim that the InspeccËaÄo Geral de
the Court (First Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward,                  FinancËas (General Tax Inspectorate) audited the
acting for the President of the First Chamber, L. Sevón                  appellant's file at the request of the DAFSE, that, at
(Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate General:                  the material time, it was empowered to conduct
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer; Registrar: R. Grass, made an                     investigations into ESF projects or that it found
order on 19 November 1998, the operative part of which                   irregularities' not previously detected by the DAFSE.
is as follows:
                                                                     Ð Breach of the principles of protection of legitimate
(1) The appeal is dismissed;                                             expectations and legal certainty: The appellant
                                                                         contests the judgment under appeal inasmuch as it
                                                                         regards the period of two years (between 12 January
(2) Mrs Anne-Marie Toller's application for legal aid is                 1995 and 16 December 1996) as a reasonable period
     dismissed;                                                          for adopting the contested decision. The fact that the
                                                                         Court of First Instance did not set out its views, in
                                                                         Case T-85/94 (2), on the legality of the reduction in the
(3) Mrs Anne-Marie Toller is ordered to pay the costs.                   assistance but ruled only that the decision at issue did
                                                                         not contain a statement of reasons is not such as to
(1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.                                                 prevent giving rise to and reinforcing legitimate
                                                                         expectations on the part of the appellant. Indeed, since
                                                                         the final payment claim was certified by the DAFSE
                                                                         and the Commission's decision against such


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 25 June 1997 in Joined Cases C-304/94, C-330/94, C-342/94 and C-224/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Terni and di Pescara): criminal proceedings against Euro Tombesi and Adino Tombesi, Roberto Santella, Giovanni Muzi and Others and Anselmo Savini (Waste - Definition - Council Directives 91/156/EEC and 91/689/EEC - Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 252/7
a cabinet housing a sealed lead-acid accumulator battery                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
must be classified under tariff subheading 85. 01 . B. II as                                 ( Sixth Chamber)
'transformers, static converters, rectifiers and rectifying
apparatus '.                                                                                of 25 June 1997
                                                                      in Joined Cases C-304/94, C-330/94 , C-342/94 and
(' OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                       C-224/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                      Pretura Circondariale di Terni and di Pescara ): criminal
                                                                      proceedings against Euro Tombesi and Adino Tombesi,
                                                                      Roberto Santella, Giovanni Muzi and Others and Anselmo
                                                                                Savini ( 1 )
                                                                      (Waste — Definition — Council Directives 91/156/EEC
                                                                             and 91/689/EEC — Council Regulation (EEC)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             No 259/93)
                         ( Sixth Chamber)                                                      ( 97/C 252/ 13 )
                         of 25 June 1997
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-285/94: Italian Republic v. Commission of the
                   European Communities (')
(Commission Regulation (EC) No 1840/94 of 27 July                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
1994 fixing the olive yields and oil yields for the                            published in the European Court Reports)
      marketing year 1993/94 — Action for annulment)
                           ( 97/C 252/ 12                             In Joined Cases C-304/94, C-330/94, C-342/94 and
                                                                      C-224/95 : references to the Court under Article 177 of the
                                                                      EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Terni ( C-304/
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      94,    C-330/94     and      C-342/94 )   and    the   Pretura
                                                                      Circondariale di Pescara ( C-224/95 ) ( Italy) for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending
                                                                      before those courts against Euro Tombesi and Adino
                                                                      Tombesi ( C-304/94 ), Roberto Santella ( C-330/94 ),
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Giovanni Muzi and Others ( C-342/94 ) and Anselmo
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Savini ( C-224/95 ) — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                      Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991 , amending
                                                                      Directive 75/442/EC on waste ( OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 ,
In Case C-285/94: Italian Republic ( Agent: Professor                 p. 32 ), of Council Directive 91 /689/EEC of 12 December
                                                                      1991 on hazardous waste ( OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 ,
Umberto Leanza, assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri, Avvocato
dello Stato ) v. Commission of the European Communities               p. 20 ), and of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 of
(Agent: Eugenio de March, assisted by Alexandre                       1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of
Carnelutti ) — application for the annulment of                       shipments on waste within, into and out of the European
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1840/94 of 27 July 1994               Community ( OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p. 1 ) — the Court
fixing the olive yields and oil yields for the marketing year         ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President
1993/94 ( OJ No L 193 , 28 . 7. 1994, p. 1 ) — the Court              of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm
( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President               ( Rapporteur ), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General ; L.
of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur),             Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; D.                  judgment on 25 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 June 1997, in which
it :                                                                  The concept of 'waste ' in Article 1 of Council Directive
                                                                       75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by
                                                                       Council Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991 , referred
                                                                      to in Article 1 (3) of Council Directive 91 /689/EEC of
 1 . dismisses the application;                                        12 December 1991 on hazardous waste and Article 2 (a)
                                                                      of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February
                                                                       1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste
                                                                      within, into and out of the European Community, is not
2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                     to be understood as excluding substances and objects
                                                                      which are capable of economic reutilization, even if the
(') OJ No C 370, 24 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                      materials in question may be the subject of a transaction
                                                                      or quoted on public or private commercial lists. In
                                                                      particular, a deactivation process intended merely to
                                                                      render waste harmless, landfill tipping in hollows or
                                                                       embankments and waste incineration constitute disposal
 ---pagebreak--- No C 252/8              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 8 . 97
or recovery operations falling within the scope of the                      obligations under Article 13 B (c) of the Sixth Council
abovementioned Community rules. The fact that a                             Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
substance is classified as a re-usable residue without its                  harmonization of the laws of the Member States
characteristics or purpose being defined is irrelevant in                   relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
that regard. The same applies to the grinding of a waste                    added tax: uniform basis of assessment;
substance.
                                                                       2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994,
     OJ No C 392, 31 . 12 . 1994.
     OJ No C 229, 2 . 9 . 1995 .                                       H OJ No C 119, 13 . 5 . 1995 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                          of 25 June 1997                                                         of 25 June 1997
        in Case C-45/95 : Commission of the European                   in Case C- 114/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
               Communities v. Italian Republic ( 1 )                   the Tribunal de Police, Luxembourg): Criminal
                                                                           proceedings against Rene Kieffer and Romain Thill (')
(VAT — Exemption within the country — Supplies of
goods which were used wholly for an exempted activity or               (Free movement of goods — Quantitative restrictions —
       which were excluded from the right of deduction)                Measures having equivalent effect — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                       No 3330/91 — Statistics on the trading of goods —
                            ( 97/C 252/14 )
                                                                       Detailed declaration of all intra-Community trading —
                                                                          Compatibility with Articles 30 and 34 of the EC Treaty)
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                                                    ( 97/C 252/15 )
                                                                                (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
In Case C-45/95 : Commission of the European                                      published in the European Court Reports)
Communities (Agent: Enrico Traversa ) v. Italian Republic
( Agent: Umberto Leanza, assisted by Maurizio Fiorilli,
                                                                       In Case C-l 14/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Avvocato dello Stato ) — Application for a declaration
that, by enacting and maintaining in force legislation                 of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal de Police, Luxembourg
which does not exempt from value added tax supplies of                 for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before
goods used wholly for an exempted activity or in any                   that court against Rene Kieffer and Romain Thill — on
event excluded from the right of deduction, the Italian                the interpretation and validity of Council Regulation
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                    ( EEC ) No 3330/91 of 7 November 1991 on the statistics
Article 13 B (c ) of the Sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/             relating to the trading of goods between Member States
EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws                  ( OJ No L 316, 16 . 11 . 1991 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Sixth
of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                      Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ),
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                     President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and P. J. G.
assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) — the Court           Kapteyn, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. von
 ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President               Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
 of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur),            25 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
 Colomer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
 for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 June 1997,              Examination of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91 of
 in which it :                                                          7 November 1991 on the statistics relating to the trading
                                                                       of goods between Member States has not disclosed any
                                                                       factor of such a kind as to cast doubt on its validity.
 1 . declares that, by enacting and maintaining in force
      legislation which does not exempt from value added                (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
      tax supplies of goods used wholly for an exempted
      activity or otherwise excluded from the right of
      deduction, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its


title: Case C-251/09: Action brought on 7 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/5

         Action brought on 7 July 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-251/09)
   2009/C 233/09
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and I. Khatzigiannis)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(2) and 31(1) of Directive 93/38/EEC (1) and Article 1(1) of Directive 92/13/EEC; (2)

               —

               order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Arkhi Ilektrikou Kiprou (Electricity Authority of Cyprus) is stated to have infringed Directives 93/38/EEC and 92/13/EEC in the course of the tendering procedure under reference number 40/2005 which related to a contract for the design, supply and construction of the fourth unit of the Vasilikos Power Station.
   The Commission submits that the infringement of Articles 4(2) and 31(1) of Directive 93/38 is due to the grounds for rejection of the complainant’s tender and acceptance of that of the other tenderer on the basis of a criterion which was not referred to clearly in the call for tenders.
   So far as concerns the infringement of Directive 92/13, a measure relating to procedure, the Commission submits (i) that, inasmuch as the contracting authority itself created by its conduct a state of uncertainty as to the interpretation to be given to the grounds which resulted in the rejection of the complainant’s tender, it infringed Directive 92/13 as interpreted in the light of the objective of effectiveness pursued by that directive, and (ii) that the contracting authority cannot give reasons for its decision by simply referring to the evaluation reports.

      (1)  Council Directive of 14 June 1993 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 84).

      (2)  Council Directive of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 14).


title: Case T-346/16: Order of the General Court of 20 June 2017 — CSL Behring v EUIPO — Vivatrex (Vivatrex) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Vivatrex — Revocation of the earlier EU trade mark — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/21

         Order of the General Court of 20 June 2017 — CSL Behring v EUIPO — Vivatrex (Vivatrex)
   (Case T-346/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Vivatrex - Revocation of the earlier EU trade mark - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 269/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CSL Behring AG (Berne, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Lukošiūtė, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Vivatrex GmbH (Aachen, Germany) (represented by: F. Stangl, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 27 April 2016 (Joined Cases R 1263/2015-4 and R 1221/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between CSL Behring and Vivatrex.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Each party is to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 April 2000 in Case C-176/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v Fédération Royale Belge des Sociétés de Basket-ball ASBL (FRBSB) (Freedom of movement for workers — Competition rules applicable to undertakings — Professional basketball players — Sporting rules on the transfer of players from other Member States)

text:
8.7.2000                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 192/3
1. Declares that, by not adopting within the period prescribed all           1. Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of
     the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to              22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit the release
     comply with Article 6(3) and (4) of Council Directive                       for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive
     92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural                     procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods is to be interpreted as
     habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the French Republic has               being applicable where goods of the type specified in Regulation
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                      No 3295/94, imported from a non-member country, are, in the
                                                                                course of their transit to another non-member country, tempor-
2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                        arily detained in a Member State by the customs authorities of
                                                                                that State on the basis of that regulation and at the request of
3. Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.                             the company which holds rights in respect of those goods which
                                                                                it claims have been infringed and whose registered office is in a
                                                                                non-member country.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                             2. Consideration of the questions raised has revealed no factor of
                                                                                such a kind as to affect the validity of Regulation No 3295/94.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              (First Chamber)                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              of 6 April 2000                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 13 April 2000
in Case C-383/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): The Polo/Lauren Company LP                        in Case C-176/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
v PT. Dwidua Langgeng Pratama International Freight                          the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Jyri
                               Forwarders (1)                                Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-Braine ASBL v
                                                                             Fédération Royale Belge des Sociétés de Basket-ball ASBL
(Common commercial policy — Regulation (EC) No 3295/94                                                     (FRBSB) (1)
— Prohibition of the release for free circulation, export, re-
export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and                (Freedom of movement for workers — Competition rules
pirated goods — Whether applicable to goods in external                      applicable to undertakings — Professional basketball players
                            transit — Validity)                              — Sporting rules on the transfer of players from other
                                                                                Member States)
                             (2000/C 192/05)                                                            (2000/C 192/06)
                      (Language of the case: German)                                              (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                      in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-176/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-383/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberster                         Première Instance (Court of First Instance), Brussels, for a
Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, for a preliminary ruling               preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
in the proceedings pending before that court between The                     court between Jyri Lehtonen and Castors Canada Dry Namur-
Polo/Lauren Company LP and PT. Dwidua Langgeng Pratama                       Braine ASBL and Fédération Royale Belge des Sociétés de
International Freight Forwarders — on the interpretation of                  Basket-ball ASBL (FRBSB), intervener: Ligue Belge — Belgische
Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994                       Liga ASBL — on the interpretation of Articles 6, 48 of the EC
laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circu-                 Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 39 EC), 85
lation, export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of             and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC)
counterfeit and pirated goods (OJ 1994 L 341, p. 8) — the                    — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,
Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the              President of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the
Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;                       Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Princi-                 Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,
pal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 April 2000, in
6 April 2000, in which it has ruled:                                         which it has ruled:
 ---pagebreak--- C 192/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             8.7.2000
Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)          Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of
precludes the application of rules laid down in a Member State by          Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
sporting associations which prohibit a basketball club from fielding       Union is founded, and the principle of equal treatment enshrined
players from other Member States in matches in the national                more specifically in the second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the
championship, where they have been transferred after a specified date,     EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the second subparagraph of
if that date is earlier than the date which applies to transfers of        Article 34(2) EC), are to be interpreted as not precluding national
players from certain non-member countries, unless objective reasons        legislation governing the initial allocation of individual reference
concerning only sport as such or relating to differences between the       quantities and adopted by a Member State which acceded to the
position of players from a federation in the European zone and that        European Communities on 1 January 1995, whereby:
of players from a federation not in that zone justify such different
treatment.                                                                 — individual reference quantities for producers who did not alter
                                                                                their production between 1 January 1991 and 31 December
                                                                                1994 are determined on the basis of the average quantities
(1) OJ C 197 of 6.7.1996.                                                       delivered between 1991 and 1993;
                                                                           — new producers who commenced production between 1 January
                                                                                1991 and 31 December 1994 and producers who increased
                                                                                their production during the same period, but not producers who
                                                                                did not alter their production between 1 January 1991 and
                                                                                31 December 1994 and ecological milk producers, have a
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          reduction applied (and at different rates) in the calculation of
                                                                                their milk quotas;
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                   — an individual reference quantity is granted only to producers who
                                                                                can show that their production was continuous between 1 March
                         of 13 April 2000                                       1994 and 1 January 1995, unless a producer who was
                                                                                compelled to interrupt delivery during that period can show
in Case C-292/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling                            special circumstances justifying the grant of a reference quantity.
from the Regeringsrätten): Proceedings brought by Kjell
                      Karlsson and Others (1)                              (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
(Additional levy on milk — Milk quota scheme in Sweden
— Initial allocation of milk quotas — National rules —
Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Principle
                        of equal treatment)
                          (2000/C 192/07)                                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                   (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                                of 13 April 2000
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                           in Case C-251/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           the Gerechtshof te ’s-Gravenhage): C. Baars v Inspecteur
                                                                           der Belastingen Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gorin-
In Case C-292/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                              chem (1)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Regeringsrätten
(Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought               (Freedom of establishment — Assets invested in shares in
before that court by Kjell Karlsson and Others — on the                    companies established in the taxing Member State —
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of                   Exemption from wealth tax — Assets invested in shares in
28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk               companies established in another Member State — No
and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1), Article 5 of                                             exemption)
the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), Article 40(3) of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 34(2) EC) and the
principle of equal treatment — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                                             (2000/C 192/08)
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, acting for the President of the
Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm,                                         (Language of the case: Dutch)
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
13 April 2000, in which it has ruled:                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992
establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector,      In Case C-251/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the        the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Gerechtshof te


title: Case T-217/06: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Arkema France and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for methacrylates — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Imputability of the unlawful conduct — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of sound administration — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Actual impact on the market — Deterrent effect of the fine — Repeat infringement — Ne bis in idem principle — Principle of proportionality — Attenuating circumstances — Actual non-application of the agreements — Attribution of liability for payment within a group of companies — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               16.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2011 — Arkema France and Others v Commission
   (Case T-217/06) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for methacrylates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Actual impact on the market - Deterrent effect of the fine - Repeat infringement - Ne bis in idem principle - Principle of proportionality - Attenuating circumstances - Actual non-application of the agreements - Attribution of liability for payment within a group of companies - Unlimited jurisdiction)
   2011/C 211/48
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Arkema France (Colombes, France), Altuglas International SA (Puteaux, France) and Altumax Europe SAS (Puteaux, France) (represented by: initially A. Winckler, S. Sorinas Jimeno and P. Geffriaud, subsequently S. Sorinas Jimeno and E. Jégou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Arbault and V. Bottka, subsequently V. Bottka and F. Castillo de la Torre, Agents)

      Re:

   By way of principal claim, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) in so far as it concerns the applicants and, in the alternative, application for annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Reduces the fine for which Arkema SA (now Arkema France), Altuglas International SA and Altumax Europea SAS were held jointly and severally liable under Article 2(b) of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) to EUR 113 343 750;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

      (1)  OJ C 249, 14.10.2006.


title: Case T-336/01: Action brought on 27 December 2001 by EuroCommerce A.I.S.B.L. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.4.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 84/63
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             —     order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceed-
                                                                              ings;
—     annul Article 1 of the Commission Decision of 2 October
      2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC
      Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case                  —     order that the Commission pay the costs incurred by
      COMP/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate) insofar as it per-                      EuroCommerce in the present proceedings.
      tains to ADM at least to the extent that it finds ADM was
      party to an infringement after 4 October 1994;
—     annul Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 2 October
      2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC
      Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case
      COMP/36.756 — Sodium Gluconate) insofar as it per-                Pleas in law and main arguments
      tains to ADM;
—     in the alternative, modify Article 3 of the Decision as it
      pertains to ADM, so as to annul or substantially reduce           The applicant is an international association with as its aim
      the fine imposed on ADM therein;                                  the research into and solution of problems concerning trade.
                                                                        The applicant has lodged in this respect several complaints
—     order the Commission to pay all of the costs of the               with the Commission regarding the non-tariff rules and the
      proceedings.                                                      multilateral interchange fees used by payment card organis-
                                                                        ations. The multilateral interchange fee is paid by the acquiring
                                                                        bank (the merchant’s bank) to the issuing bank (the customer’s
                                                                        bank). This fee has, according to the applicant, a direct
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         influence on the fee that a merchant has to pay to his acquiring
                                                                        bank for the use of payment cards for payment by his
                                                                        customers. The non-tariff rules are a set of rules concerning
The grounds and main arguments are similar to those raised              the issuing and acquiring of payment cards.
in case T-322/01 Roquette Frères/Commission
                                                                        The Commission decided, in the contested decision, that there
                                                                        was no need for any action under Article 81 EC Treaty with
                                                                        regard to the non-tariff rules. According to the applicant, this
                                                                        decision violates both the EC Treaty and the EEA agreement.
Action brought on 27 December 2001 by EuroCommerce
A.I.S.B.L. against the Commission of the European Com-
                            munities
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Commission did not respect its
                                                                        right to be heard. In its comments on the second letter sent
                        (Case T-336/01)                                 under Article 6 of Commission Regulation 2842/98, the
                                                                        applicant made a conditional withdrawal of its complaints, in
                                                                        the belief that the Commission would prohibit the multilateral
                        (2002/C 84/116)                                 interchange fee. This fee, according to the applicant, is closely
                                                                        intertwined with the non-tariff rules. Later, the Commission
                  (Language of the case: English)                       changed its opinion on this point. According to the applicant,
                                                                        however, it had then no opportunity to give its comments.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Furthermore, the applicant claims that there has been a
European Communities on 27 December 2001 by EuroCom-                    violation of Article 81 of the EC Treaty and the principle of
merce A.I.S.B.L., represented by Mr Pierre V. F. Bos and Mr             sound administration, in that the Commission failed to
Morten Nissen of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Brussels (Belgium).              consider the non-tariff rules and the multilateral interchange
                                                                        fees together. According to the applicant, they should have
                                                                        been considered together in order to establish whether or not
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             they have a detrimental effect on competition. The Com-
                                                                        mission has cleared the non-tariff rules in the contested
—     annul the Commission’s Decision dated 9 August 2001               decision and has the intention of clearing the multilateral
      relating to proceedings under Article 81 of the EC                interchange fee. The applicant, however, states that these
      Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case                  aspects are closely intertwined and that their joint effect on
      No COMP/29.373 — Visa International);                             competition should have been investigated.
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/64                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      6.4.2002
The applicant also states that the Commission has erred in law           —      order the defendant to pay to the applicant, by way of
and in fact by clearing the ‘no-discrimination rule’, according                 compensation for the damage suffered and to be suffered,
to which merchants are prohibited from charging their costs                     EUR 350 000, fixed with all manner of reservations,
for the use of debit card by a customer to that customer.                       together with default interest at the rate of 10 % per
According to the applicant, this rule constitutes a restriction                 annum as from 7 October 1999 until the date on which
on competition, since it prevents the merchants from using                      it is actually paid;
the threat of such discrimination as pressure in order to
bargain for lower merchant’s fees. The applicant states that the         —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
Commission has made an incomplete market investigation on
this point.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Likewise, the applicant claims that the Commission has erred
in clearing several other rules with the contested decision.             The applicant is suffering from an occupational disease
Thus the Commission clears the ‘cross-border issuing rules’              contracted after working in the Court of Justice building which
that require that a bank wishing to start issuing cards in               contained asbestos.
another state must comply with the rules applicable in that
state. According to the applicant, this partitions the market de         According to the applicant, the Court of Justice confuses two
facto and prevents less restrictive rules in one state from being        categories of damage: that covered by Article 288 of the EC
used by issuing banks as a competitive advantage in another              Treaty and that covered by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations.
state. Furthermore, the Commission erred in clearing the                 The applicant is not seeking a finding under Article 73 of
‘cross-border acquiring rule’, which prevents, according to the          the Staff Regulations that his health has deteriorated but
applicant, merchants in one state from seeking an acquiring              compensation, under Article 288 of the EC Treaty, for non-
bank in another state where the multilateral interchange fee is          material damage as a result of his illness, damage which is
lower.                                                                   non-medical and non-economic.
Finally, the Commission gives insufficient reasoning for its             The applicant claims that all the conditions for the granting of
clearance of the ‘No acquiring without issuing rule’. This rule          such compensation are met in his case. In particular, he has
requires that a bank, wishing to acquire merchants, must issue           suffered actual damage in that his family and social lives have
a certain number of cards to customers before it may begin its           been disrupted as a result of his illness. Secondly, there is, in
acquiring activities. This amounts, according to the applicant,          the applicant’s view, a causal link between the damage suffered
to a market sharing agreement between the current issuers.               and the act complained of in that the Court of Justice did not
                                                                         take appropriate protective measures. Thirdly, the damage is
                                                                         unusual and special in nature.
                                                                         Action brought on 10 January 2002 by Schlüsselverlag
Action brought on 3 January 2002 by Robert Polinsky
                                                                         J.S. Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H. and Others against the
  against Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-1/02)                                                               (Case T-3/02)
                        (2002/C 84/117)                                                             (2002/C 84/118)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
An action against the Court of Justice was brought before the            European Communities on 10 January 2002 by Schlüsselverlag
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         J.S. Moser Gesellschaft m.b.H., established in Innsbruck (Aus-
3 January 2002 by Robert Polinsky, residing in Thionville
                                                                         tria), J. Wimmer GmbH, established in Linz (Austria), Zeitungs-
(France), represented by Juan-Ramón Iturriagagoitia, lawyer.            und Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H., established in Bregenz (Aus-
                                                                         tria), Eugen Russ Vorarlberger Zeitungsverlag und Druckerei
                                                                         Gesellschaft mbH, established in Schwarzach (Austria), ‘Die
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Presse’ Verlagsgesellschaft m.b.H., established in Vienna (Aus-
                                                                         tria), and ‘Salzburger Nachrichten’ Verlags-Gesellschaft m.b.H.
—     annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 25 September         & Co KG, established in Salzburg (Austria), represented by
      2001;                                                              M. Krüger, lawyer.


title: Case C-134/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Jürgen Blödel-Pawlik v HanseMerkur Reiseversicherung AG (Directive 90/314/EEC — Package travel, package holidays and package tours — Article 7 — Protection against the risk of insolvency or bankruptcy on the part of the package organiser — Scope — Insolvency of the organiser on account of its fraudulent use of the funds transferred by consumers)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Jürgen Blödel-Pawlik v HanseMerkur Reiseversicherung AG
   (Case C-134/11) (1)

   (Directive 90/314/EEC - Package travel, package holidays and package tours - Article 7 - Protection against the risk of insolvency or bankruptcy on the part of the package organiser - Scope - Insolvency of the organiser on account of its fraudulent use of the funds transferred by consumers)
   2012/C 98/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jürgen Blödel-Pawlik

      Defendant: HanseMerkur Reiseversicherung AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (OJ 1990 L 158, p. 59) — Protection against the risk of insolvency or bankruptcy of the organiser — Insolvency of the organiser on account of misappropriation of the funds transferred by consumers — Applicability of Directive 90/314/EEC

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7 of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours is to be interpreted as covering a situation in which the insolvency of the travel organiser is attributable to its own fraudulent conduct.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 18.6.2011.


title: Case C-232/08: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation (EC) No 850/1998 — Article 29(2) — Restrictions on fishing for plaice — Maximum engine power of fishing vessels — Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 — Article 2(1) — Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 — Article 23 — Control, and enforcement of the rules)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/10

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 15 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Case C-232/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation (EC) No 850/1998 - Article 29(2) - Restrictions on fishing for plaice - Maximum engine power of fishing vessels - Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 - Article 2(1) - Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 - Article 23 - Control, and enforcement of the rules)
   2009/C 297/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: M. de Grave and C. Wissels, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy — Fishing for plaice — Inspection and control of fishing vessels and their activities — Responsibility of the Member States

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by allowing fishing vessels to have a higher engine power than permitted under Article 29(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2166/2005 of 20 December 2005, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy and Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 768/2005 of 26 April 2005;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.08.2008.


title: Case T-26/10: Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Alibaba Group v OHIM — allpay.net (ALIPAY)

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/45

         Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Alibaba Group v OHIM — allpay.net (ALIPAY)
   (Case T-26/10)
   2010/C 100/69
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alibaba Group Holding Limited (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: allpay.net.Limited (Hereford, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 November 2009 in case R 1790/2008-1, as far as the appeal was dismissed; and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALIPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42

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

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ALLPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 40 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ALLPAY.NET’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 36, 38 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark registration of a series of word marks containing the word ‘ALLPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 40 and 42; unregistered earlier marks or signs containing the word ‘ALLPAY’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and services

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal partially

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case T-75/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2014  — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma v OHIM — Nepentes Pharma (Momarid) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark Momarid — Earlier Community word mark LONARID — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relevant public — Obligation to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2014 — Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma v OHIM — Nepentes Pharma (Momarid)
   (Case T-75/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark Momarid - Earlier Community word mark LONARID - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relevant public - Obligation to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 026/30)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG (Ingelheim, Germany) (represented initially by: V. von Bomhard and D. Slopek, and subsequently by V. von Bomhard, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nepentes Pharma sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: C. Bercial Arias, K. Dimidjian-Lecompte and C. Casalonga, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 November 2012 (Case R 2292/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG and Nepentes S.A.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 28 November 2012 (Case R 2292/2011-4) as regards ‘chemicals for pharmaceutical use’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case C-504/08: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/70/EC — Civil servants and politicians — Money laundering — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-504/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/70/EC - Civil servants and politicians - Money laundering - Incomplete transposition)
   2009/C 282/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and E. Adsera Ribera, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J. López-Medel Bascones, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of politically exposed person and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis (OJ 2006 L 214, p. 29)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the definition of ‘politically exposed person’ and the technical criteria for simplified customer due diligence procedures and for exemption on grounds of a financial activity conducted on an occasional or very limited basis, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5 of that directive;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht by order of that court of 2 February 1996 in the case of Maria Martinez Sala v. Freistaat Bayern (Case C-85/96)

text:
 18 . 5 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 145/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches                  ( 1 ) states criteria to identify private persons or
Finanzgericht by order of that court of 7 March 1996                          organizations having a legitimate interest in protecting
in the case of Quelle Schickedanz AG and Co. v.                               consumers, and
                 Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt/M.
                          ( Case C-80/96 )                              ( 2 ) allows such private persons or organizations to take
                                                                              action before the courts or before competent
                             ( 96/C 145/04 )                                  administrative bodies for a decision as to whether
                                                                              contractual terms drawn up for general use are
                                                                              unfair ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Hessisches
Finanzgericht ( Hessen Finance Court) of 7 March 1 996,                 (') OJ No L 95 , 21 . 4 . 1993 , p . 29 .
which was received at the Court Registry on 18 March
 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Quelle
Schickedanz         AG   and       Co . v.   Oberfinanzdirektion
Frankfurt/M. on the following questions :
( a ) Where goods put up in sets for retail sale, comprising a          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte Suprema di
      brassière and briefs, are classified individually pursuant        Cassazione — First Civil Division — by order of that court
      to the Annex to Commission Regulation ( EC )                      of 4 December 1995 in the case of Provincia Autonoma di
      No 1966/94 of 28 July 1994 concerning the                         Trento and Ufficio del Medico Provinciale di Trento against
      classification of certain goods in the combined                                    Dega di Depretto Gino Snc
      nomenclature ( OJ No L 198 , 30 . 7. 1994, p . 193 ), is                                    ( Case C-83/96 )
      that classification valid, inasmuch as it thereby conflicts
      with Rule 3 ( b ) of the general rules for the                                                ( 96/C 145/06 )
      interpretation of the combined nomenclature ?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( b ) If the answer to question ( a ) is in the negative :              European Communities by an order of the First Civil
                                                                        Division of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione of 4 December
      Is a set put up for retail sale, comprising a knitted             1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on
      brassière and knitted briefs, covered by code number              18 March 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        Provincia Autonoma di Trento and Ufficio del Medico
      6212 10 00 because the brassière fails to be regarded, in
      accordance with Rule 3 ( b ) of the said general rules, as        Provinciale di Trento against Dega di Depretto Gino Snc on
      the component which gives the goods their essential               the following question :
      character ?
                                                                        Must Article 3 ( 1 ) ( 6 ) of Council Directive 79/112/EEC on
                                                                        the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                        to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs
                                                                        for sale to the ultimate consumer (*) be interpreted as
                                                                        meaning that the expression 'established within the
                                                                        Community' used in it, refers only to the seller or refers, in
                                                                        the absence of a seller established within the Community,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                 also to the manufacturer and/or packager ? Must that
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of              provision therefore be taken to mean that, in the absence of
28 February 1996, in the case of The Queen against                      a seller established in the Community, the manufacturer
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte:                    and/or the packager must be established in the
         ( 1 ) Consumers' Association; (2 ) Which (?) Ltd               Community ?
                          ( Case C-82/96 )
                            ( 96/C 145/05 )                             (') OJ No L 33 , 8 . 2 . 1979 , p . 1 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 28 February 1 996 ,
which was received at the Court Registry on 15 March
1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte:            Landessozialgericht by order of that court of 2 February
                                                                        1996 in the case of Maria Martinez Sala v. Freistaat
( 1 ) Consumers' Association; ( 2 ) Which (?) Ltd, on the
following questions :                                                                                Bayern
                                                                                ( Case C-85 /96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 145/07 )
Does Article 7 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April
1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (^ impose
obligations on Member States to ensure that national                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
law :                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Ninth Senate of
 ---pagebreak--- No C 145/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18 . 5 . 96
the Landessozialgericht Bayern ( Higher Social Court of                         II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and XI of Council Regulation
Bavaria ) of 2 February 1996 , which was received at the                        ( EEC ) No 3030/93 on common rules for imports of
Court Registry on 20 March 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling                     certain textile products from third countries concerning
in the case of Maria Martinez Sala v. Freistaat Bayern on the                   cottage industry and folklore products ( 1 ),
following questions:
    I. Was a Spanish national living in Germany who was                     — order the Commission of the European Communities to
       employed, with various interruptions, until 1986                         pay the costs .
       and later, apart from a short period of employment
       in    1989 ,    received    social   assistance     under  the
       Bundessozialhilfegesetz ( Federal social welfare law,                Pleas in law and main arguments
       ( BSHG )) still in 1993 a worker within the meaning of
       Article 7 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 (') or an           — No reason for the retroactive nature of the amendments
       employed person within the meaning of Article 2 in
       conjunction with Article 1 of Regulation ( EEC )                         introduced by Regulation ( EC ) No 3053/95 : the
       No 1408/71 ( 2 )?                                                        reference in the 14th recital of the preamble to the
                                                                                Regulation to the arrangement with India , in particular
                                                                                to the removal of quantitative restrictions on the
  II. Is Erziehungsgeld ( childcare benefit) under the Gesetz                   importation of certain hand loom and folklore products
       iiber die Gewâhrung von Erziehungsgeld und                               originating in the Republic of India, contains nothing
       Erziehungsurlaub ( Law on the grant of childcare                         which justifies the retroactive effect of the amendment
       benefit and child-care leave, ( BErzGG )) a family benefit
                                                                                introduced into Annex VI to Regulation ( EEC )
       within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) ( h ) of Regulation                No 3030/93 . It may not even be assumed that there is a
       ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , which Spanish nationals living in
                                                                                reason relating to the effectiveness of the arrangement
       Germany are entitled to in the same way as German
                                                                                inasmuch as that arrangement was not yet in force —
       nationals under Article 3 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                    either on 1 January or on 30 December 1 995 (the date on
       No 1408/71 ?
                                                                                which the Regulation was adopted by the
                                                                                Commission ).
III . Is Erziehungsgeld payable under the BErzGG a social
       advantage within the meaning of Article 7 ( 2 ) of
       Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ?                                          It cannot be said that the retroactive liberalization of the
                                                                                importation of Indian hand loom products in the area of
IV. Is it compatible with the law of the European Union for                     clothing was foreseeable by the economic operators in
       the BErzGG to require possession of a formal residence                   the industry. Such liberalization breached the legitimate
       authorization for the payment of Erziehungsgeld to                       expectations of the operators and the principle of legal
       nationals of a Member State, even though they are                        certainty and is therefore unlawful . Moreover, the
       permitted to reside in Germany ?                                         decision of the Council concerning the conclusion of the
                                                                                agreements does not provide for their retroactive
C ) OJ , English Special Edition J 968 ( II ), p . 475 .                        application, thus expressly depriving of any legal basis
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .                       the retroactivity and accelerated application of the
                                                                                arrangement with India under Article 2 of and Annex VI
                                                                                to Regulation ( EC ) No 3053/95 .
                                                                            — Infringement of Article 19 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                                No 3030/93 : the power to amend the Annexes to
Action brought on 21 March 1996 by the Portuguese                               Regulation ( EEC ) No 3030/93 is contingent upon
Republic against the Commission of the European                                 agreements with third countries having previously been
                              Communities                                       reached, which was not the case when the Regulation,
                             Case C-89/96
                                                                                which is partially contested in so far as concerns the
                                                                                Memorandum of Understanding with India , was
                             ( 96/C 145/08                                      adopted . The reference in the preamble to Regulation
                                                                                ( EEC ) No 3053/95 to an agreement which has not yet
An action against the Commission of the European                                been reached by the Community and the changes to the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                          rules for imports of textile products originating in India
the European Communities on 21 March 1996 by the                                constitute a serious infringement by the Commission
Portuguese Republic, represented by Luis Fernandes and                          which is particularly open to criticism inasmuch as there
Maria Luisa Duarte, acting as agents, with an address for                       is no Council proposal for a decision to apply on a
service in Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33 , Allée                     provisional basis the EC-India Agreement.
Scheffer .
                                                                            (») OJ No L 323 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 1 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Annex V of Commission Regulation ( EC )
      No 3053/95 of 20 December 1995 amending Annexes I,


title: Case T-433/03: Action brought on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom Limited against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
6.3.2004               EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 59/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Article 82 EC in refusing to conclude a cross-border roaming
                                                                              (GSM) agreement with the applicant. The applicant later
                                                                              converted that complaint into a complaint under Article 86
Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case                 (EC, in conjunction with Articles 82 EC, 49 EC and 12
T-17/95 (1), the Commission adopted an amendment of the                       EC, against Spain alleging that Telefonica was acting under
rules relating to the criteria applicable to appointment in grade             instructions from the Spanish Government which claims
and classification in scale on recruitment, which entitled                    sovereignty over Gibraltar.
officials to seek a review of their classification on entering the
service. By the contested decision, the Commission confirmed
the applicant’s classification in Grade A 7 on the date of his
recruitment and, accordingly, rejected a request for reclassifi-              In support of its application, the applicant invokes a series of
cation submitted by the applicant.                                            alleged manifest errors of assessment of the contested decision.
                                                                              According to the applicant, the Commission erred in consider-
                                                                              ing that Telefonica is not a public undertaking or that it enjoys
In support of his action, the applicant relies on a failure to                special rights within the meaning of article 86 EC. The
state reasons in the contested decision, a manifest error of                  applicant further alleges that Telefonica is in a dominant
assessment and alleged discrimination between the applicant,                  position and that there is an appreciable effect on trade and
whose request for reclassification was rejected, and other                    on competition of the refusal to conclude an agreement with
officials who, with less professional experience than the                     the applicant. In the context of the same plea the applicant
applicant, were none the less reclassified in the higher grade of             argues that the Commission’s assessment that consumers in
the career bracket.                                                           Gibraltar have access to mobile telecommunications services
                                                                              in Spain is manifestly unsound and that there is no suitable
                                                                              alternative to the Commission’s intervention.
(1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
    ties of 5 October 1995, published in OJ C 315, 25.11.95, p. 14.
                                                                              The applicant further puts forward a number of procedural
                                                                              and administrative grounds for annulment referring, in this
                                                                              context, to inadequate reasoning and a violation of the
                                                                              applicant’s legitimate expectations which allegedly arose as a
                                                                              result of a letter sent on 7 June 2000 by three members of the
Action brought on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom                              Commission to Spain and the United Kingdom, requesting the
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-                           two countries, among other things, to find a solution to the
                              munities                                        complaint about roaming. The applicant further submits, in
                                                                              the context of the same plea, that the Commission has failed
                         (Case T-433/03)                                      to act impartially and that it has breached the principle
                                                                              requiring it to act within a reasonable period.
                          (2004/C 59/46)
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom                        Action brought on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom
Limited, Gibraltar, represented by Mr M. Llamas, Barrister and                Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
Mr B. O’Connor Solicitor.                                                                                munities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-434/03)
—      Annul the Commission’s decision of 17 October 2003
       rejecting the complaint brought by Gibtelecom under
                                                                                (2004/C 59/47)
       Article 86 EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC;
—      order the Commission to pay Gibtelecom’s costs.                                            (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
By the contested decision the Commission rejected a complaint                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
filed by the applicant on 14 May 1996 alleging that the                       European Communities on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom
Spanish telecommunications operator, Telefonica SA, had                       Limited, Gibraltar, represented by Mr M. Llamas Barrister and
committed a series of abuses of dominant position contrary to                 Mr B. O’Connor Solicitor.


title: Case C-125/13: Action brought on 14 March 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/21

         Action brought on 14 March 2013 — European Commission v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-125/13)
   2013/C 156/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: K. Banks, A. Bouquet, A. Szmytkowska, Agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 of 19 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks (1),

               —

               to maintain the effects of the annulled Council Regulation for a reasonable time after the judgment, that is to say, for a maximum of one full calendar year starting on January 1 of the year after the judgment, and

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present action the Commission requests the Court to annul Council Regulation (EU) No 1243/2012 of 19 December 2012 amending Regulation (EC) No 1342/2008 establishing a long-term plan for cod stocks and the fisheries exploiting those stocks, while maintaining the legal effects of that Regulation for a reasonable time after the judgment in the present case, that is to say a maximum of one full calendar year starting on January 1 after the judgment.
   The Commission's application is based on the following three pleas:

               (a)

               In its First Plea on the error in law concerning the legal basis of the contested Regulation (violation of Article 43(2) TFEU), the Commission submits that the Council committed an error in splitting the Commission's proposal and adopting a part of it on the basis of Article 43(3) TFEU as it should have been based in its entirety, as the Commission had proposed, on Article 43(2). The contested Regulation contains provisions which do not fall within the scope of Article 43(3), which can only provide a basis for measures on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities.

               (b)

               In the Second Plea on the consequential error in law concerning the decision making procedure and the institutional prerogatives of the European Parliament to participate in the ordinary legislative procedure and of the European Economic and Social Committee to be duly consulted (violation of Articles 294 and 43(2) TFEU), the Commission submits that the part of the proposal concerned was adopted by the Council acting alone, while the European Parliament did not participate in its adoption as it would have done under the ordinary legislative procedure, and the European Economic and Social Committee was not adequately consulted.

               (c)

               Finally, in the Third Plea on the adoption of the contested Regulation without a Commission proposal or the fundamental change in the nature of the Commission's proposal (fr. dénaturation) (violation of Article 17 TEU and Article 43(3) TFEU), the Commission demonstrates that the splitting of the proposal by the Council and the consequential change of legal basis of one part of it has resulted in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the Commission's proposal, in violation of the Commission's exclusive right of initiative.

      (1)  OJ L 352, p. 10


title: Case T-386/13: Action brought on 29 July 2013 — Kėdainių rajono Okainių ŽŪB and Others v Council and Commission

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/27

         Action brought on 29 July 2013 — Kėdainių rajono Okainių ŽŪB and Others v Council and Commission
   (Case T-386/13)
   2013/C 313/52
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicants: Kėdainių rajono Okainių ŽŪB (District of Kėdainiai, Lithuania) and 134 others (represented by: I. Vėgėlė, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the applicants’ action admissible;

               —

               pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final of 2 July 2012 authorising the making of complementary national direct payments in Lithuania for 2012 (notified under document number K(2012) 4391);

               —

               in Article 132 of Regulation No 73/2009, an article governing complementary national direct payments and direct payments, declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, the final subparagraph of paragraph 2 which provides that ‘[t]he total direct support which a farmer may be granted in the new Member States after accession under the relevant direct payment, including all complementary national direct payments, shall not exceed the level of direct support a farmer would be entitled to receive under the corresponding direct payment then applicable to the Member States in the Member States other than the new Member States, taking into account, from 2012, the application of Article 7 in conjunction with Article 10’;

               —

               in Article 10 of Regulation No 73/2009, an article laying down special rules for modulation in the new Member States, declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 277 TFEU, the provision in paragraph 1 ‘… taking into account any reductions applied under Article 7(1)’;

               —

               order the defendants to pay all the costs incurred by the applicants, regarding which evidence will be submitted to the Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               Lack of reasoning for, and of foundation of, Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final
               Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final of 2 July 2012 lacks reasoning and foundation because there are no data confirming that in 2012 the level of direct payments in the new and old Member States of the European Union is uniform (equalised).

               2.

               Level of direct payments in the Republic of Lithuania not corresponding to the level agreed in the Act of Accession and to the level of direct payments of the old Member States
               The Republic of Lithuania’s actual level of direct payments does not correspond to the level agreed in the Act of Accession of 23 September 2003. In breach of the Act of Accession, Regulation No 583/2004 of 22 March 2004 adopted amendments to Regulation No 1782/2003, laying down national agricultural support ceilings for the new Member States (Article 71c of and Annex VIIIa to Regulation No 1782/2003).
               In 2012 the direct payment percentage in the Republic of Lithuania did not equalise with the direct payment level of the old Member States of the European Union: in the old Member States modulation is applied only to sums exceeding EUR 5 000 and that means that not all direct payments allocated to farmers of the old Member States are modulated (reduced) by 10 %, but only those which exceed EUR 5 000. Therefore, it is unfounded and unlawful to state that in 2012 the level of direct payments in the old Member States is 90 % (‘100% minus 10 % modulation’). The level of direct payments in the old Member States is greater than 90 % because a proportion of the sums — not exceeding EUR 5 000 — are not modulated.

               3.

               Differences in the amount of direct payments in the Republic of Lithuania, compared with the old Member States
               Direct payments actually made to Lithuanian farmers from the European Union budget in 2012 are among the lowest, amounting to less than half those received in the old Member States despite the 10 % modulation of the latter.

               4.

               Infringement of the Act of Accession by the concluding words of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 73/2009, by the final subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009, and by Commission Implementing Decision C(2012) 4391 final of 2 July 2012 adopted on the basis of that subparagraph
               The Act of Accession did not lay down provisions concerning modulation of the direct payments introduced and/or reduction in Lithuania of complementary national direct payments.
               The provision ‘taking into account any reductions applied under Article 7(1)’ in Article 10(1) in Chapter 2 of Regulation No 73/2009 is contrary to the Act of Accession because this provision accelerates the supposed equalisation of the level of direct payments in the old and new Member States.
               The part of Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009 ‘… taking into account, from 2012, the application of Article 7 in conjunction with Article 10’, which enshrines the supposed equalisation in 2012 of the level of direct payments in the old and new Member States, is contrary to the Act of Accession because it lays down a specific year (2012) when the level of support received is supposedly equalised.
               In Article 132(2) of Regulation No 73/2009, in breach of the Act of Accession, the term ‘amount’ was changed to the term ‘level’, which involves not the support actually received but a supposed percentage.
               It is unlawful to compare direct payments in the old and new Member States by comparing support received by the old Member States (100 % minus modulation) with the support received in the new Member States in accordance with the percentage rate, laid down in the Act of Accession, for the introduction of support.

               5.

               Infringement by the contested legal measures of the objectives of the common agricultural policy that are laid down
               On the basis of the Act of Accession, agricultural support in the new Member States is calculated according to the reference yield and the base area. In 2012 the reference yield and the base area changed greatly in Lithuania, so that the modulation applied and the reduction of complementary national payments are in themselves contrary to the objectives of the common agricultural policy, in particular to the objective of increasing agricultural productivity.