title: Case T-343/06: Action brought on 1 December 2006 — Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/16

         Action brought on 1 December 2006 — Shell Petroleum and Others v Commission
   (Case T-343/06)
   (2007/C 20/23)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Shell Petroleum NV (The Hague, The Netherlands), The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV (Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, W. Knibbeler, S. Verschuur, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   Shell Petroleum NV and The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd request the Court:

               —

               To annul, in full, Commission's Decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/F/38.456 — Bitumen — NL, hereinafter, 'the decision') insofar as it is addressed to Shell Petroleum NV and The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd; or in the alternative

               —

               to annul, in part, the decision, insofar as it finds that Shell Petroleum NV and The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd infringed Article 81 EC between 1 April 1994 and 19 February 1996 and to reduce the fine imposed upon them; and

               —

               in any event, to reduce the fine imposed on Shell Petroleum NV and The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd pursuant to the decision;

               —

               to order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including costs incurred by Shell Petroleum NV and The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd associated with payment in whole or in part of the fine or constituting a bank guarantee;

               —

               take any other measures that the Court considers to be appropriate.

         Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV requests the Court:

               —

               to annul, in part, the decision insofar as it finds that Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV infringed Article 81 EC between 1 April 1994 and 19 February 1996 and to reduce the fine imposed upon it; and

               —

               in any event, to reduce the fine imposed on Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV pursuant to the decision;

               —

               to order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including costs incurred by Shell Verkoopmaatschappij BV associated with payment in whole or in part of the fine or constituting a bank guarantee;

               —

               take any other measures that the Court considers to be appropriate.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants argue that the following elements of the decision are based on errors of law and errors of assessment:

               (a)

               the finding that Shell Verkoopmaatschappij BV was an instigator and leader of the cartel;

               (b)

               the attribution of liability for the infringement to The Shell Transport and Trading Company Ltd and Shell Petroleum NV;

               (c)

               the increase in the fine for repeated infringement;

               (d)

               the calculation of the starting amount for Shell Nederland Verkoopmaatschappij BV;

               (e)

               the duration of the infringement.


title: Case F-5/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors (Staff case — Officials — Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance — Summary of the pleas in law in the action — Time-limit for complaints — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/72

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 26 June 2008 — Nijs v Court of Auditors
   (Case F-5/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Article 44(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Summary of the pleas in law in the action - Time-limit for complaints - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 209/131)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Bart Nijs (Bereldange, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by: T. Kennedy, J.-M. Stenier, G. Corstens and J. Vermer, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision of the appointing authority not to promote the applicant to Grade A*11 pursuant to the 2006 promotion year — Annulment of a series of decisions concerning the career of the applicant and of other officials of the Court of Auditors — Annulment of the result of the Court of Auditor's Staff Committee election of 2006 — Claim for damages
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Mr Nijs is ordered to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 44.


title: Case C-489/04: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen, Germany) — Alexander Jehle, Weinhaus Kiderlen v Land Baden-Württemberg (Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 — First paragraph of Article 2 — Olive oil and olive-pomace oil — Marketing standards — Retail trade — Presentation to the final consumer — So-called bag in the box method)

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 September 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen, Germany) — Alexander Jehle, Weinhaus Kiderlen v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-489/04) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 - First paragraph of Article 2 - Olive oil and olive-pomace oil - Marketing standards - Retail trade - Presentation to the final consumer - So-called ‘bag in the box’ method)
   (2006/C 261/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Alexander Jehle, Weinhaus Kiderlen

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen — Interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 of 13 June 2002 on marketing standards for olive oil (OJ 2002 L 155, p. 27) — Presentation of olive oils and olive-pomace oils to final consumers in pre-sealed packaging having a maximum capacity of five litres — Possibility of selling olive oil which is presented in a five-litre ‘Bag in the Box’ and which consumers draw off in smaller amounts within the shop
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 of 13 June 2002 on marketing standards for olive oil, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1176/2003 of 1 July 2003, and in particular the first paragraph of Article 2 thereof, must be construed as meaning that olive oils and olive-pomace oils may be presented to the final consumer only in packaging which complies with the requirements laid down by that provision.

               2.

               The first paragraph of Article 2 of Regulation No 1019/2002, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1176/2003, must be construed as prohibiting a method of marketing, such as that used by the applicant in the main proceedings, which does not meet the conditions laid down by that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 19.2.2005.


title: Case F-49/10: Action brought on 24 June 2010 — De Nicola v EIB

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/61

         Action brought on 24 June 2010 — De Nicola v EIB
   (Case F-49/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/98
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision communicated to the applicant on 11 May 2009 insofar as it essentially obstructed the attempted amicable settlement of the matter by rejecting by implication the claim for reimbursement of medical expenses for laser therapy treatment, and an order that the defendant pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000 together with interest, monetary inflation to be taken into account in fixing the amount awarded.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the measure communicated by e-mail on 11 May 2010.

               —

               Order the EIB to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 3 000, expenditure for the laser therapy treatment undergone in 2007, together with compensation for monetary inflation and interest on the amount awarded.

               —

               Order the EIB to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-630/13 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Issam Anbouba against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-592/11 Anbouba v Council

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/21

         Appeal brought on 25 November 2013 by Issam Anbouba against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-592/11 Anbouba v Council
   (Case C-630/13 P)
   2014/C 45/37
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Issam Anbouba (represented by: J.-M. Salva and M.-A. Bastin, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union (Sixth Chamber) of 13 September 2013 in Case T-592/11 Issam Anbouba v Council of the European Union;

               —

               Declare the decision to include the appellant on the list of persons and entities covered by the economic sanctions to be unlawful;

               —

               Annul the decisions and regulations contested in Case T-592/11;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of the two actions.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant invokes two grounds.
   In the first place, the appellant considers that the General Court erred in law by holding that the Council, without being able to adduce evidence that the appellant supports the Syrian regime, correctly applied a presumption that the directors of the principal undertakings of Syria support the Syrian regime. The first part of the ground of appeal alleges the absence of a legal basis for such a presumption. The extremely serious and constraining nature of the restrictive measures means that they may not be applied on the basis of a presumption for which due provision has not been made by any regulatory act. The second part of the ground of appeal alleges the disproportionate nature of that presumption in relation to the objective pursued, in particular due to its extremely general nature. The third part of the ground of appeal alleges the irrebuttable nature of that presumption. Evidence of the negative, that there is no support for the regime, is, in practical terms, impossible to adduce, and the provision of positive proof of opposition to the regime cannot reasonably be regarded as the only means of establishing the absence of a link with the regime.
   In the second place, the appellant accuses the General Court of having given judgment without evidence produced by the Council. By the first part of its second ground of appeal, the appellant considers that the General Court erred in law, first, by not carrying out a normal review of the contested decisions, and second, by giving judgment without the Council providing it with evidence. In the second part of its second ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the General Court failed to declare, in the judgment under appeal, a manifest infringement of the principle of audi alteram partem and the rights of the defence of the appellant. The General Court relieved the Council of the requirement to furnish evidence or the grounds justifying the failure to provide that evidence and accepted that the Council could base its decision solely on a presumption on which it, however, could not validly rely.


title: Case C-319/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 and 30 EC — Directive 2001/83/EC — Garlic preparation in capsule form — Preparation legally marketed as a food supplement in a number of Member States — Preparation classified as a medicinal product in the Member State of importation — Definition of medicinal product — Obstacle — Jurisdiction — Public health — Proportionality)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-319/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 and 30 EC - Directive 2001/83/EC - Garlic preparation in capsule form - Preparation legally marketed as a food supplement in a number of Member States - Preparation classified as a medicinal product in the Member State of importation - Definition of ‘medicinal product’ - Obstacle - Jurisdiction - Public health - Proportionality)
   (2008/C 8/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and B. Schima, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 and 30 EC — National administrative practice classifying a garlic preparation in capsule form as a medicinal product — Concept of medicinal product under Community rules
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               By classifying as a medicinal product a garlic preparation in capsule form not satisfying the definition of a medicinal product within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC and Article 30 EC;

               2)

               The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.


title: Case C-673/13 P: Appeal brought on 17 December 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 October 2013 in Case T-545/11: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Commission

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/10

      Appeal brought on 17 December 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 8 October 2013 in Case T-545/11: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland and Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) v European Commission
      (Case C-673/13 P)
      (2014/C 71/17)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Oliver, P. Ondrůšek, Agents)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Stichting Greenpeace Nederland, Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe)

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  quash the judgment of the General Court;

                  —

                  pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute of the Court, either give a final ruling on the first and third pleas itself or refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling on those please; and

                  —

                  order the respondents to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The Appeal consists of one plea, namely that the General Court misconstrued the concept of information which ‘relates to emissions into the environment’ in the first sentence of Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (1) (‘the Aarhus Regulation’), dismissing the Commission's view that this concept must be interpreted in a consistent and harmonious way in the light of the other provisions in issue. There are three branches to this plea:

                  (i)

                  the General Court erred in disregarding the need to ensure the ‘internal’ consistency of Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (2) read with Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Regulation, as understood in the light of Article 4(4) of the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (‘the Aarhus Convention’);

                  (ii)

                  the General Court failed to take due account of the confidentiality provisions in sector-specific legislation on plant protection products, namely Council Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (3) and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC (4); and

                  (iii)

                  the General Court erred in disregarding the need to construe Article 6(1) of the Aarhus Regulation in so far as possible in conformity with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and with the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS’).

         (1)  OJ L 264, 25.9.2006, p. 13.

         (2)  OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

         (3)  OJ L 230, 19.08.1991, p. 1.

         (4)  OJ L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1.


title: Case T-80/15 P: Appeal brought on 19 February 2015 by Luigi Macchia against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2014 in Case F-63/11 RENV, Macchia v Commission

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/33

         Appeal brought on 19 February 2015 by Luigi Macchia against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 12 December 2014 in Case F-63/11 RENV, Macchia v Commission
   (Case T-80/15 P)
   (2015/C 127/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Macchia (Rome, Italy) (represented by S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the CST of 12 December 2014 in case F-63/11 RENV;

               —

               accordingly, grant the applicant the relief sought at first instance; and therefore:

                           —

                           declare the application admissible;

                           —

                           principally:

                                       —

                                       annul the implied decision adopted on 12 August 2010 by the Director General of OLAF, in his capacity as AECE, not to renew the appellant’s contract, as is clear, in particular, from the lack of response to the request that the appellant had sent him on 12 April 2010;

                                       —

                                       in so far as necessary, annul the decision adopted on 22 February 2011 by the AECE, dismissing the complaint brought by the defendant on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations;

                                       —

                                       accordingly, reinstate the appellant in the functions which he performed within OLAF, in the context of a prolongation of his contract in accordance with the statutory requirements;

                           —

                           in the alternative, and if the request for reinstatement set out above is not granted, order the Commission to compensate for the material damage sustained by the defendant, assessed provisionally and ex aequo et bono as the difference between the salary the appellant would have received as a temporary agent at OLAF and that relating to the post he currently occupies (approximately EUR 3  000 per month) for at least a period similar to that of his initial contract (4 years), and longer if that contract had been renewed a third time, giving him the right to a permanent contract;

                           —

                           in any event, order the Commission to pay a sum provisionally fixed and ex aequo et bono of EUR 5  000 (five thousand euros) as compensation for non-material damage together with default interest at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment to be delivered;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs, including those of the present appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a single plea in law alleging an infringement of Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal, alleging that the CST exceeded the scope of its powers of judicial review, breach of the duty to state reasons, distortion of the facts of the case and substantive inaccuracies in the findings in the documents in the file by the CST.


title: Case T-551/11: Order of the General Court of 5 February 2013 — BSI v Council (Action for annulment — Dumping — Extension of anti-dumping duty imposed on the imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia — Independent importer — Article 263, fourth paragraph of TFEU — Lack of individual concern — Legislative measure containing implementing measure — Inadmissible)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/17

         Order of the General Court of 5 February 2013 — BSI v Council
   (Case T-551/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Dumping - Extension of anti-dumping duty imposed on the imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia - Independent importer - Article 263, fourth paragraph of TFEU - Lack of individual concern - Legislative measure containing implementing measure - Inadmissible)
   2013/C 86/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Brugola Service International Srl (BSI) (Cassano Magnago, Italy) (represented by: S. Bariatti and M. Farneti, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and P. Mahnič Bruni, Agents, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and M. de Morpurgo, then by G. Berrisch, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and D. Grespan, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 723/2011 of 18 July 2011 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2011 L 194, p. 6).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Brugola Service International Srl (BSI) is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.


title: Case C-335/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu v Claudia Norica Vijulan

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Craiova (Romania) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu v Claudia Norica Vijulan
   (Case C-335/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/10
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Craiova

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

      Respondent: Claudia Norica Vijulan

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a tax with the characteristics of the pollution tax governed by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, as amended by Government Emergency Order No 218/2008, from which motor vehicles in category M1 and pollution class Euro 4, with a cylinder capacity of not more than 2 000 cc, are exempt, as are all motor vehicles in category N1 and pollution class Euro 4 which were registered for the first time in Romania or in another Member State between 15 December 2008 and 31 December 2009, but which applies to similar or competing second-hand motor vehicles from other Member States which were registered before 15 December 2008, in that such a tax could amount to a domestic tax on goods from other Member States which is indirectly discriminatory when compared with the tax treatment of domestic goods, thus protecting the domestic manufacture of new motor vehicles?

               2.

               Is the first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU (formerly Article 90 EC) to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from introducing a tax with the characteristics of the pollution tax introduced by Government Emergency Order No 50/2008, as amended by Government Emergency Order No 218/2008, from which motor vehicles in category M1 and pollution class Euro 4, with a cylinder capacity of not more than 2 000 cc, are exempt, as are all motor vehicles in category N1 and pollution class Euro 4 which were registered for the first time in Romania or in another Member State between 15 December 2008 and 31 December 2009, but which applies to motor vehicles with different technical characteristics from those indicated which were registered during the same period in other Member States, in that such a tax could amount to a domestic tax on goods from other Member States which is indirectly discriminatory when compared with the tax treatment of domestic goods, thus protecting the domestic manufacture of new motor vehicles?


title: Action brought on 5 April 1996 by Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-49/96)

text:
 1 . 6 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 158/ 15
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           detectability' as provided for in Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                          No 1697/79 and/or Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 .
The applicant explains that it is a company engaged in the
sourcing, distribution and marketing of manufactured                  5 . The Commission has been guilty of a manifest error of
apparel . Among other things , it is an importer of rainwear              assessment and/or interpretation in relation to the
manufactured from a combination of plastic and textile                    concept of 'obvious negligence ' as provided for in
materials . Between 19 May 1992 and 25 May 1994, the                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 , as amended by
applicant imported a number of consignments of the said                   Regulation ( EEC ) No 3069/86 and Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                          No 2913/92 .
rainwear, declaring them to fall within heading 3926 of the
combined nomenclature, which attracted a zero rate of
import duty under the Generalized System of Preferences               6 . The Commission has been guilty of a manifest error of
( GSP ). This tariff classification had been accepted on several          assessment in that it has applied two different legislative
occasions by the Irish Customs Service, both by the section               regimes in assessing the case transmitted to it by the Irish
responsible for GSP matters and by the customs import                     Customs Authorities . One of the legislative regimes is
officer dealing with the case, who had even inspected the                 out of date . The legislative regimes have differences in
goods to check that they had been classified correctly . The              points of substance and cannot be applied concurrently.
applicant underlines that the physical examination of the                 The Commission has failed to distinguish between the
goods and the acceptance of its customs declaration further               regimes .
supported it in its view that the correct tariff heading was
3926 . However, after further inspection, the Tariff
Classification Unit determined in November 1993 that the
goods were properly classified under heading 6210 . The
applicant points out that it has accepted that determination
and used it on all subsequent declarations in respect of the
same goods .
                                                                      Action brought on 5 April 1996 by Maria Grazia Colombo
                                                                      Lunghi against the Commission of the European
The case was sent to the Commission by the Irish Customs                                        Communities
Authorities on 26 April 1995 . In due course, the                                            ( Case T-49/96 )
Commission consulted a group of experts within the
framework of the Committee provided for in Article 247 of                                      ( 96/C 158/38 )
the Customs Code . On 3 November 1995 , the Commission
took a decision finding that it was justified to take action for                     (Language of the case: French)
the post-clearance recovery of the import duties in question
and that the remission of these duties was not justified ( the
contested decision ).                                                 An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 5 April 1996 by
The action is based on the following pleas in law:                    Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi, residing in Brussels,
                                                                      represented by Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten and Jacques
1 . The Decision was taken in breach of the relevant                  Sambon, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at
      Regulations in that it was taken outside the six month          the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
      time period provided for. This time period is mandatory         Rheinsheim .
      and provides for no exceptions or derogations .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
2.    The Decision was taken in breach of a fundamental
      principle of Community law: the principle of Audi               — declare that the compensation proposed by the
      alteram partem was infringed in that the applicant                  Commission is inadequate to satisfy the applicant's
      was not permitted to express its views effectively in               rights, and order the Commission to pay the damages
      proceedings which have involved unfavourable                        particularized by the defendant in her complaint of
      consequences for it .                                               11 September 1995 ;
3 . The Decision was taken in breach of the relevant                  — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
      Regulations and/or in breach of an essential procedural
      requirement in that the relevant Regulations require the        Pleas in law and main arguments
      Commission to consult with a group of experts
      composed of all Member States . The applicant believes
      that several Member States were not represented in the          The applicant, an official retired on medical grounds,
      committee .                                                     contests the decision of the Commission limiting to
                                                                      Bfr 150 000 the compensation for the material and
                                                                      non-material damage suffered by her as a result of the
4 . The Commission has been guilty of a manifest error                disappearance of her personal belongings, which was caused
      of assessment in relation to the concept of 'reasonable         by a service-related fault .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 158 / 16        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      1 . 6 . 96
The applicant points out in that regard that, having been           The applicant claims that the Court should:
denied access to the Commission's premises , apart from the
buildings accommodating the medical service and the                 — annul       the  decision    of   the Selection   Board      for
departments dealing with social matters, she was                        Competition COM/T/C/96 not to admit the applicant to
subsequently requested to attend in her office in order to              the competition tests,
collect her personal belongings . However, after an
appointment had been fixed for that purpose, it became              — order the Commission to pay the costs .
apparent that all of her personal belongings had
disappeared .                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant points out not only that there has                    The applicant, a member of the temporary staff in grade C 5 ,
self-evidently been fault on the part of the administration         contests the decision rejecting her application to take part
but also that she has clearly suffered actual loss, and             in Competition COM/T/C/96 on the ground that she
criticizes the Commission's offer as manifestly                     allegedly did not satisfy the length of service requirement of
inadequate .                                                        completion of three years' continuous service with the
                                                                    European Communities as a member of the temporary
                                                                    staff.
                                                                    The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in
Action brought on 17 April 1996 by Véronique Kohn-Bergé             support of her application :
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                    — infringement of the right of members of the temporary
                      ( Case T-55 /96 )                                 staff to take part in internal competitions, and of the first
                        ( 96/C 158 /39 )                                paragraph of Article 27 and Article 29 ( 1 ) of the Staff
                                                                        Regulations, in so far as the requirement concerning
               (Language of the case: French)                           length of continuous service may lead to the elimination
                                                                        of candidates with qualifications which are the same as,
An action against the Commission of the European                        or better than , those possessed by other candidates who
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       are admitted to the tests,
Instance of the European Communities on 1 7 April 1 996 by
Véronique Kohn-Bergé, residing at Florange ( France ),              — a manifest error of assessment in that it is clear that the
represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                   applicant has in fact been in the service of the
Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                Commission since 16 October 1991 and , consequently,
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciare Myson                 had demonstrably acquired three years ' seniority by
SARL , 1 Rue Glesener .                                                 29 September 1995 .


C 55/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                       8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-89/02 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-97/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/58)                                                         (2003/C 55/61)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-89/02 (Reference for a preliminary         from the register of Case C-97/02 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Dolomite Franchi SpA v            ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Rezzola Scavi Srl v
Ministero delle Finanze.                                               Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-95/02 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-98/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/59)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/62)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                       By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-95/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       from the register of Case C-98/02 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Ugine Srl v Ministero delle
                                                                       ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Villa Gemma SpA v
Finanze.
                                                                       Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-96/02 (1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-106/02 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/60)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/63)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-96/02 (Reference for a preliminary         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): TOMAR Srl v Ministero             from the register of Case C-106/02: Commission of the
delle Finanze.                                                         European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.


title: Case C-198/08: Action brought on 14 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/10

         Action brought on 14 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-198/08)
   (2008/C 197/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls, Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Republic of Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 (1) by adopting and maintaining legal provisions according to which minimum selling prices for cigarettes and fine-cut tobacco for the rolling of cigarettes are fixed by the State;

               —

               Order the Republic of Austria to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Manufactured tobacco products are one of the three groups of products which are subject to harmonised Community rules on excise duties. Directive 95/59/EC contains a number of general provisions applicable to all manufactured tobacco products and also regulates the structure of excise duty on cigarettes. Article 9(1) enshrines the principle that both the manufacturer and the importer are free to determine the maximum prices for manufactured tobacco products. That provision guarantees not only that the tax base is subject in all Member States to the same principles; it also prevents the achievement of the goals of the directive from being frustrated by State price rules which harm competition and the internal market.
   The rule introduced in Austria in 2006, according to which minimum prices for cigarettes and fine-cut tobacco for the rolling of cigarettes are laid down by State bodies, infringes the abovementioned provision of Directive 95/59/EC. The fixing of minimum prices eliminates the price differences between various products which can exist owing to the different factors influencing price formation, by immediately raising the retail prices in the lower price range to a minimum level. Such a mechanism leads unquestionably to distortions in the flow of goods between the Member States, even if the minimum price, as in Austria, is derived from the average market prices.
   Among the interests which the Member States can pursue by means of their trade and taxation policies is of course also the protection of public health. That also includes the aim of keeping the price of tobacco products at a high level. As the Member States can however use taxation mechanisms in order take this objective fully into account, it is not possible for them to rely on such interests in order to depart from the provision of the directive in question, since they would thereby harm the functioning of the internal market.
   According to the Commission, taxation is an effective and sufficient mechanism of price regulation. Examples from other Member States also show that the price of manufactured tobacco products can be raised by the pressure of taxation alone, since the tax level can be increased as much as desired in order to push up the final price, regardless of the exact profit margin of the manufacturers concerned and/or the extent to which they are prepared to sell without making a profit or even at a loss. That approach, according to which taxation functions as an objective cost factor, not only avoids the negative consequences of minimum prices on competition and the internal market but also a further disadvantage associated with minimum prices, namely the protection of the margins of the manufacturers of tobacco products. That is a result which makes no contribution whatsoever to health protection but is in fact counter-productive. The Commission is therefore convinced that the desired protection of public health can be guaranteed by means of a dynamic and successful State taxation policy, without it being necessary to resort to minimum prices which are incompatible with Article 9 of Directive 95/59/EC.

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40.


title: Case C-446/11 P: Appeal brought on 30 August 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, extended composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-196/06 Edison v Commission

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/27

         Appeal brought on 30 August 2011 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Sixth Chamber, extended composition) on 16 June 2011 in Case T-196/06 Edison v Commission
   (Case C-446/11 P)
   2011/C 311/45
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci and V. Bottka, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Edison SpA

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber, extended composition) of 16 June 2011, notified to the Commission on 20 June 2011;

               —

               Refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               Reserve the decision on costs in both sets of proceedings;

               —

               In the event that the Court finds that it can adjudicate on the substance, dismiss the action brought at first instance and order Edison SpA to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission relies on four grounds in support of its appeal.

               (i)

               The General Court infringed Article 253 EC, in conjunction with Article 84 EC, in that it erred in its assessment of the purpose and scope of the obligation to state reasons with regard to the attribution of liability for infringements of Article 81 EC to the company holding all the capital in the company which participated directly in the infringement, which is based on a presumption which must be adequately rebutted. In particular, the General Court failed to take account of context and legal rules governing the matter, especially the burden of proof on the applicant. It erred in finding that the Commission was under a duty to state reasons in relation to arguments that were ‘not insignificant’, without requiring, as it should have required, that such arguments were capable of rebutting the presumption of liability on the part of the controlling company.

               (ii)

               In the alternative, the General Court infringed Articles 230 EC and 253 EC, in that it reached the conclusion that inadequate reasons were given for the contested decision. First, it erred in law in its reading of the contested decision, neglecting to consider certain relevant passages. Second, it confused issues of reasoning and issues of substance in refusing to take account of explanations provided in the contested decision, finding either that the Commission had acted in breach of the appellant’s rights of defence, or that such explanations were not convincing.

               (iii)

               The General Court infringed Articles 230 EC and 253 EC and the principles of European Union law on the rights of the defence and the right to be heard before the courts of the European Union. Indeed, it incorrectly held that the Commission could not rely on arguments not referred to in the statement of objections or not repeated in the decision to address the appellant’s arguments intended to rebut the presumption of liability on the part of the controlling company. That applies in particular where, as in the present case, there are documents relied on by the applicant or of which it was aware and the applicant could not have been unaware of the risk that the Commission might take them into account as evidence against it, or where it could reasonably infer from the documents in question the conclusions which the Commission intended to draw from them.

               (iv)

               The General Court infringed Article 230 EC, in conjunction with Articles 231 EC and 253 EC, incorrectly holding that it was necessary to annul the contested decision on the ground that it contained an inadequate statement of reasons, even though the approach adopted in the decision was substantively correct.


title: Case T-375/06: Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Viega v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/26

         Action brought on 14 December 2006 — Viega v Commission
   (Case T-375/06)
   (2007/C 42/47)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Viega GmbH & Co. KG (Attendorn, Germany) (represented by: J. Burrichter, T. Mäger and F.W. Bulst, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 1(1) of the decision void, in so far as it finds an infringement by the applicant of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement;

               —

               declare Article 2 of the decision void, in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 54.29 million on the applicant;

               —

               in the alternative, make an appropriate reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 of the decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 in Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Fittings. In the contested the decision a fine was imposed on the applicant for breach of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement. According to the Commission, the applicant took part in a series of agreements in the form of price-fixing, establishing price lists and rebates, establishing mechanisms for the implementation of price increases, dividing up markets and customers and exchanging other economic information on the market for copper fittings and copper alloy fittings, from 12 December 1991 until 22 March 2001.
   The applicant puts forward four pleas in support of its claim.
   It is submitted, first, that the contested decision infringes Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 1/2003 (1), on the ground that the defendant infringed fundamental principles in the assessment of fines by incorrectly determining the applicable turnover. The defendant, in assessing the severity of the alleged infringement by the applicant, should have taken into account the turnover of press fittings when determining the turnover, even though the applicant did not at any time participate in anti-competitive practices in respect of press fittings.
   Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed Article 81(1) EC and Article 253 EC by incorrectly establishing the participation, and the duration of that participation, in the conduct of which it is accused. According to the applicant, the defendant failed to produce substantive evidence in relation to the applicant and erred in finding that infringements were committed.
   In addition, the applicant alleges, in the alternative, breach of Article 81(1) EC and Article 253 EC, on the ground that the geographic scope of the infringements in Article 1 of the contested decision in relation to the applicant was incorrectly established.
   Finally, the applicant alleges that Article 2 of the contested decision infringes Article 23(2) of Regulation No. 1/2003, on the ground that the Commission infringed fundamental principles in the assessment of fines. The applicant submits, in this connection, that the Guidelines on the method of setting fines (2) were incorrectly applied in that the Commission classed the infringement as particularly serious, incorrectly established the duration of the infringement, incorrectly increased the basic amount of the fine on account of the duration of the infringement and failed to assess the mitigating circumstances.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2002 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).


title: Case T-176/17: Action brought on 13 March 2017 — Sequel Naturals v EUIPO — Fernandes (VeGa one)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/58

         Action brought on 13 March 2017 — Sequel Naturals v EUIPO — Fernandes (VeGa one)
   (Case T-176/17)
   (2017/C 144/78)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sequel Naturals ULC (Port Coquilam, British Columbia, Canada) (represented by: H. Lindström, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Carlos Fernandes (Gross-Umstadt, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word elements ‘VeGa one’ — Application for registration No 12 649 612

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 2466/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case T-206/96: Order of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Van Bennekom v Council and Commission

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/28

         Order of the General Court of 17 May 2011 — Van Bennekom v Council and Commission
   (Case T-206/96) (1)

   2011/C 204/51
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 8.3.1997.


title: Case T-258/16: Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2017 — Mediterranean Premium Spirits v EUIPO — G-Star Raw (GINRAW) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark GINRAW — Earlier EU word marks RAW — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 June 2017 — Mediterranean Premium Spirits v EUIPO — G-Star Raw (GINRAW)
   (Case T-258/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark GINRAW - Earlier EU word marks RAW - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Evidence submitted for the first time before the General Court - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2017/C 249/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mediterranean Premium Spirits, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.A. Mora Granell and J. Romaní Lluch, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and K. Sidat Humphreys, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: G-Star Raw CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Dijkman and J. van Manen, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 March 2016 (Case R 1583/2015-4), relating to opposition proceedings between G-Star Raw and Mediterranean Premium Spirits.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mediterranean Premium Spirits, SL to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by EUIPO and G-Star Raw CV.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Case T-477/08: Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Mundipharma v OHIM — ALK-Abelló (AVANZALENE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark AVANZALENE — Earlier Community word mark AVANZ — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 March 2010 — Mundipharma v OHIM — ALK-Abelló (AVANZALENE)
   (Case T-477/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark AVANZALENE - Earlier Community word mark AVANZ - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 113/67
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mundipharma AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: ALK-Abelló A/S (Hørsholm, Denmark) (represented by: S. Palomäki Arnesen, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008 (Case R 1694/2007-4), relating to opposition proceedings between ALK-Abelló A/S and Mundipharma AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Mundipharma AG to pay the costs, except those incurred by ALK-Abelló A/S.

               3.

               Orders ALK-Abelló to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Case C-483/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 2001/14/EC — Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity — Levying of charges — Charges — Management independence)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-483/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 2001/14/EC - Allocation of railway infrastructure capacity - Levying of charges - Charges - Management independence)
   2013/C 114/05
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta and B. Plaza Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Očková and T. Müller, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and M. Perrot, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 10(7) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and of Articles 4(1), 11, 13(2), 14(1) and 30(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29) — Charges — Management independence

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4(1), 11, 13(2) and 14(1) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic and the French Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-216/16: Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Vignerons de la Méditerranée v EUIPO — Bodegas Grupo Yllera (LE VAL FRANCE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark LE VAL FRANCE — Earlier EU word mark VIÑA DEL VAL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Vignerons de la Méditerranée v EUIPO — Bodegas Grupo Yllera (LE VAL FRANCE)
   (Case T-216/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark LE VAL FRANCE - Earlier EU word mark VIÑA DEL VAL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 144/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Vignerons de la Méditerranée (Narbonne, France) (represented by: M. Karsenty-Ricard and M. Merli, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Bodegas Grupo Yllera SL (Rueda, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 2 March 2016 (Case R 427/2015-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Grupo Yllera and Vignerons de la Méditerranée.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Vignerons de la Méditerranée to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case T-59/09: Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Germany v Commission (Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Documents relating to an infringement procedure which has been closed — Documents originating from a Member State — Grant of access — Prior agreement of the Member State)

text:
               24.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2012 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-59/09) (1)

   (Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to an infringement procedure which has been closed - Documents originating from a Member State - Grant of access - Prior agreement of the Member State)
   2012/C 89/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, B. Klein and A. Wiedmann, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Smulders, P. Costa de Oliveira and F. Hoffmeister, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by M. Muñoz Pérez, and subsequently by S. Centeno Huerta, Agents); and Republic of Poland (represented: initially by M. Dowgielewicz, and subsequently by M. Szpunar and B. Majczyna, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by J. Bering Liisberg and B. Weis Fogh, and subsequently by S. Juul Jørgensen and C. Vang, Agents); Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, Agent); and Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: K. Petkovska, A. Falk and S. Johannesson, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision SG.E.3/RG/mbp D(2008) 10067 of 5 December 2008 granting some citizens access to certain documents submitted by the Federal Republic of Germany in infringement procedure No 2005/4569.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs and those of the European Commission.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Finland, the Republic of Poland and the Kingdom of Sweden to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 16.5.2009.


title: Case C-293/11: Action brought on 9 June 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/21

         Action brought on 9 June 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-293/11)
   2011/C 232/33
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafillou and C. Soulay)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by applying the special VAT scheme for travel agents in cases where the travel services have been sold to a person other than the traveller, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 306 to 310 of Directive 2006/112/EC; (1)

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The scheme for travel agents applies only to services which are supplied directly to travellers, in accordance with the directive’s wording in most languages. Even the English version, which uses, at one point only, the term ‘customer’, would not make sense unless it related solely to travellers. The same conclusion results from a combined reading of all the relevant provisions (systemic argument). A historic interpretation also supports the same conclusion, since the VAT directive merely codified the Sixth Directive, without altering its content. So far as concerns a teleological interpretation, what is important is that double taxation of agents in certain Member States not be allowed (by the exclusion of deductions in the event of extended application of the scheme for travel agents). Any shortcoming of the directive cannot be corrected by individual States without its text being officially amended.

      (1)  OJ L 347, 11.12.2006.


title: Case C-237/06 P: Order of the Court of 8 March 2007 — Guido Strack v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Staff cases — Decision to close an OLAF investigation — Allegations of fraud made by an official — Locus standi of the official)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/24

         Order of the Court of 8 March 2007 — Guido Strack v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-237/06 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Staff cases - Decision to close an OLAF investigation - Allegations of fraud made by an official - Locus standi of the official)
   (2007/C 96/43)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Guido Strack (represented by: L. Füllkrug, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party/parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Kraemer and C. Ladenburger, as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the Order of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 March 2006 in Case T-4/05 Strack v Commission by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible an action seeking, first, annulment of OLAF's decision to close an investigation initiated after allegations of fraud made by the appellant, and of the final report of the investigation, and, second, re-initiation of that investigation and the drawing up of a new final report — Meaning of ‘act adversely affecting an official ’in the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities — Obligation to refer the case to the Civil Service Staff Tribunal
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Strack is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 December 1996 in Case C-142/95 P Associazione Agricoltori della Provincia di Rovigo and Others v. Commission of the European Communities and Others (Appeal - Natural or legal persons - Act of direct and individual concern to them)

text:
No C 54/4               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 2 . 97
     products listed in the Annex to Council Regulation                     Magistrate's Court, Turin ) and from the Pretura
     (EEC) No 383S/90 of 20 December 1990 amending                          Circondariale di Torino itself for a preliminary ruling in
     Regulations (EEC) No 3831 /90, (EEC) No 3832/90                        the criminal proceedings pending before that court against
     and (EEC) No 3833/90 in respect of the system of                       X — on the interpretation of Council Directive 90/270/
     generalized tariff preferences applied to certain                      EEC of 29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health
     products originating in Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador                     requirements for work with display screen equipment
     and Peru, does not apply to imports of preserved tuna                  ( fifth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16
     in olive oil from Spain .                                              ( 1 ) of Directive 89/391 /EEC ) ( OJ No L 156 , 21 . 6 . 1990,
                                                                            p. 14 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of : J. C.
2 . It is for the national court to establish whether the                   Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), President of the
     conditions laid down in Article 5 (2) of Council                       Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M.
      Regulation (EEC) No 1679/79 on the post-clearance                     Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
     recovery of import duties which have not been                          General ; R. Grass , Registrar, gave a judgment on
     required of the person liable for payment on goods                     12 December 1996 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                            follows :
     entered for a customs procedure involving the
      obligation to pay such duties are fulfilled. In order to
     determine whether or not the error committed by the                    1 . Article 9 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 90/270/EEC of
     authorities could reasonably have been detected by the                       29 May 1990 on the minimum safety and health
     person liable it is appropriate to take account, in                          requirements for work with display screen equipment
     particular, of the nature of the error, the professional                     (fifth individual Directive within the meaning of
      experience of the trader concerned and the degree of                        Article 16 (1 ) of Directive 89/391 /EEC) must be
      care exercised by him. The relevant factors to be taken                     interpreted as meaning that the regular eye tests for
      into account include the complexity of the legislation,                     which it provides are to be carried out on all workers
      the terms in which the purpose of the provisions at                         to whom the Directive applies and Article 9 (2) is to
      issue is expressed, recurrence of the error in question                     be interpreted as meaning that workers are entitled to
      in other measures of the Member State concerned and                         an ophthalmological examination in all cases where
     any divergence of views between the Member States as                         the eye and eyesight test carried out pursuant to
      to the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions.                    Article 9 (1 ) shows that this it necessary.
(') OJ No C 199 , 13 . 5 . 1995 ,
     OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 , and                                        2 . On a proper construction of Articles 4 and 5 of
     OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .                                                Directive 90/270/E.EC, the obligations they impose
                                                                                apply to all workstations as defined in Article 2 (b),
                                                                                even if they are not used by workers as defined in
                                                                                Article 2 (c), and workstations must be adapted to
                                                                                comply with all the minimum requirements laid down
                                                                                in the Annex .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                           ( Fifth Chamber )
                      of 12 December 1996
in Joined Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 ( references for a
preliminary ruling from the Procura della Repubblica
presso la Pretura Circondariale di Torino, Italy, and from
the Pretura Circondariale di Torino ): Criminal proceedings                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                              against X ( 1 )                                                         ( Sixth Chamber)
(Directive 90/270/EEC on the minimum safety and health                                             of 12 December 1996
requirements for work with display screen equipment —
Definition of worker — Eye and eyesight tests —                             in Case C-142/95 P Associazione Agricoltori della
Definition of workstation for the purposes of Articles 4                    Provincia di Rovigo and Others v. Commission of the
and 5 — Extent of the obligations laid down in Article 4                                  European Communities and Others (')
                                  and 5)                                     (Appeal — Natural or legal persons — Act of direct and
                              ( 97/C 54/06 )                                                    individual concern to them)
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/07 )
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
In Joined Cases C-74/95 and C-129/95 : references to the
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
Procura della Repubblica ( Office of the Public Prosecutor )                 In Case C-142/95 P: Associazione Agricoltori della
to     the    Pretura     Circondariale       di   Torino     ( District     Provincia di Rovigo, Associazione Polesana Coltivatori
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 2 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 54/5
Diretti di Rovigo, Consorzio Cooperative Pescatori del                General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,
Polesine, Cirillo Brena, represented by Ivone Cacciavillani,          for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December
of the Venice Bar, with an address for service in                     1996 , in which it has ruled :
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue
Albert ler — appeal against the order of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities of                         Consideration in the light of the grounds stated in the
21 February 1995 in Case T- 117/94 Associazione                       order for reference of Articles 1 (2) and 2 (2) of
Agricoltori della Provincia di Rovigo and Others v.                   Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/94 of 31 January
Commission [ 1995 ] ECR 11-455, seeking to have that                  1994 laying down detailed rules for the application of
order set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being           Council Regulation (EC) No 130/94 with regard to the
the Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:                   import arrangements for frozen beef falling within
Lucio Gussetti ), Mauro Girello and Greguoldo Daniele —               CN code 0202 and products falling within CN code
the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini ,              0206 29 91 has disclosed no factor capable of affecting
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, C. N. Kakouris,               their validity.
G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur ), Judges; D.
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General ; R. Grass,                     (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 1996 , in
which it:
1 . dismisses the appeal;
2 . orders the appellants to pay the costs.                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
O OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .                                                             of 12 December 1996
                                                                      in   Case C-298/95 Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (')
                                                                      (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure
                                                                      to transpose Directives 78/659/EEC and 79/923/EEC
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 within the periods prescribed — Quality of fresh waters
                          (First Chamber)                             needing protection or improvement in order to support
                                                                             fish life — Quality required of shellfish waters)
                      of 12 December 1996
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/09 )
in Case C-241/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division ): The
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Queen v. Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex
         parte: Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and Others (')
(Frozen beef — Common import rules — Community                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                   tariff quota — Newcomers)                                    published in the European Court Reports)
                            ( 97/C 54/08 )
                                                                      In Case C-298/95 : Commission of the European
                 (Language of the case: English)                      Communities ( Agent: Gotz zur Hausen ) v. Federal
                                                                      Republic of Germany ( Agents: Ernst Roder and Bernd
                                                                      Kloke ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        adopt within the periods prescribed all the measures
           published in the European Court Reports)                   necessary to comply with Articles 3 and 5 of Council
                                                                      Directive 78/659/EEC of 18 July 1978 on the quality of
In Case C-241 /95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                      fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order
                                                                      to support fish life ( OJ No L 222, 14 . 8 . 1978 , p. 1 ) and
of the EC Treaty from the High Court of Justice, Queen's              Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of
Bench Division, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings            30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish
pending before that court between The Queen and the                   waters ( OJ No L 281 , 10 . 11 . 1979, p. 47), the Federal
Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex parte:                 Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and Other — on the validity of                under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
Articles 1 ( 2 ) and 2 ( 2 ) of Commission Regulation ( EC )          composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ),
No 214/94 of 31 January 1994 laying down detailed rules                President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, D. A. O. Edward , J.
 for the application of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 130/94            P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
 with regard to the import arrangements for frozen beef                General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
 falling within CN code 0202 and products falling within               12 December 1996 , in which it:
 CN code 0206 29 91 ( OJ No L 27, 1 . 2 . 1994, p. 46 ) —
 the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: L. Sevon,
 President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and                         1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the periods
 M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate                   prescribed all the measures necessary to comply with


title: Case C-202/05: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division — United Kingdom) — Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem v Comptroller-General of Patents (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Patent law — Medicinal products — Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products — Concept of product — Concept of combination of active ingredients )

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/19

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division — United Kingdom) — Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem v Comptroller-General of Patents
   (Case C-202/05) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Patent law - Medicinal products - Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Concept of ‘product’ - Concept of ‘combination of active ingredients’)
   (2007/C 96/33)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Chancery Division)
   Parties

      Applicant: Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

      Defendant: Comptroller-General of Patents
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice of England and Wales, (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182, p. 1) — Concept of ‘product ’— Concept of ‘combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product ’— Medicinal product composed of two components, one having a recognised therapeutic effect for a specific indication and the other enabling the product to be presented in a form that ensures its efficacy
   Operative part of the order
   Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, in the version resulting from the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, is to be interpreted as meaning that in a case where a basic patent protects a second medical use of an active ingredient, that use does not form an integral part of the definition of the product.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.


title: Case C-514/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH v Land Salzburg (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Article 7(1) — National legislation providing for account to be taken only of a proportion of the periods of service completed with employers other than Land Salzburg — Restriction of freedom of movement for workers — Justifications — Overriding reasons in the public interest — Objective of rewarding loyalty — Administrative simplification — Transparency)

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/15

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg — Austria) — Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH v Land Salzburg
   (Case C-514/12) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for workers - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7(1) - National legislation providing for account to be taken only of a proportion of the periods of service completed with employers other than Land Salzburg - Restriction of freedom of movement for workers - Justifications - Overriding reasons in the public interest - Objective of rewarding loyalty - Administrative simplification - Transparency)
   2014/C 45/26
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Salzburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zentralbetriebsrat der gemeinnützigen Salzburger Landeskliniken Betriebs GmbH

      Defendant: Land Salzburg

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Landesgericht Salzburg — Interpretation of Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1) — Remuneration of contractual civil servants of a Member State — National legislation providing for account to be taken of all periods of service completed with a specific public employer, but for account to be taken of only a proportion of the periods of service completed after a certain age with other public or private employers.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which, in determining the reference date for the purposes of the advancement of an employee of a local or regional authority to the next pay step in his grade, account is to be taken of all uninterrupted periods of service completed with that authority, but of only a proportion of any other periods of service.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case T-30/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2008 — Denka International v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 2006/92/EC — Maximal levels for dichlorvos residues — Lack of individual concern — Inadmissible)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/43

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2008 — Denka International v Commission
   (Case T-30/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2006/92/EC - Maximal levels for dichlorvos residues - Lack of individual concern - Inadmissible)
   (2008/C 223/74)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Denka International (Barneveld, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: L. Parpala and B. Doherty, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2006/92/EC of 9 November 2006 amending annexes to Council Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC and 90/642/EEC as regards maximum levels for captan, dichlorvos, ethion and folpet (OJ 2006 L 311, p. 31).
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

               2.

               Orders Denka International BV to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case C-23/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 17 January 2012 — Mohamad Zakaria

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts (Latvia) lodged on 17 January 2012 — Mohamad Zakaria
   (Case C-23/12)
   2012/C 80/18
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts/Latvia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mohamad Zakaria

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) provide persons with a right of appeal not only against a decision refusing entry into a country, but also against infringements committed in the procedure leading to the adoption of a decision authorising entry?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, in the light of recital 20 in the preamble to, and Article 6(1) of, Regulation No 562/2006, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, does Article 13(3) of Regulation No 562/2006 require the Member States to guarantee an effective remedy before a court of law?

               3.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 2 in the negative, in the light of recital 20 in the preamble to, and Article 6(1) of, Regulation No 562/2006, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, does Article 13(3) of Regulation No 562/2006 require the Member States to guarantee an effective remedy before an administrative body which, from an institutional and functional perspective, provides the same guarantees as a court of law?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1.


title: Case C-305/10: S Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Rail transport — Directive 2005/47/EC — Working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector — Agreement between sectoral social partners at European level — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               28.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 160/9

         S Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 April 2011 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-305/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Rail transport - Directive 2005/47/EC - Working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector - Agreement between sectoral social partners at European level - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2011/C 160/08
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and M. van Beek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action for failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt and/or notify, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions provided for by Council Directive 2005/47/EC of 18 July 2005 on the Agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector (OJ 2005 L 195, p. 15)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2005/47/EC of 18 July 2005 on the Agreement between the Community of European Railways (CER) and the European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) on certain aspects of the working conditions of mobile workers engaged in interoperable cross-border services in the railway sector, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.