title: Case T-102/99: Action brought on 26 April 1999 by 'L' against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
3.7.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 188/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — infringement of Article 86 of the EC Treaty
                                                                            In the relationship between the satellite broadcaster and
                                                                            the cable operator, the one payment reasonably to be
The applicant, a public interest broadcaster, having its head-              expected is by the cable operator to the broadcaster as
quarters in France, whose shareholders are all the French-                  financial compensation for the authorisation. When the
speaking public service broadcasters of France, Belgium,                    opposite situation is found to exist, as in the case of the
Switzerland and Canada, challenges the decision, contained in               tariffs charged by Deutsche Telekom, this can only be due
the Commission’s letter of 15 February 1999, rejecting a                    to the abuse by the cable operator of the dominant position
complaint concerning Deutsche Telekom’s pricing policy in                   he occupies.
that, with regard to its cable television network, Deutsche
Telekom applies a system of dual levies, requiring payment              — infringement of the general principles of sound adminis-
from broadcasters such as the applicant as well as from the                 tration, of Article 86 and 155 of the EC Treaty and of
final consumers (the cable-connected households).                           Article 3(1) of Council Regulation No 17/62
                                                                            In rejecting the applicant’s complaint, the Commission has
                                                                            merely followed the precedent which it created for itself in
The applicant submits that the Commission’s letter of 15 Feb-               its Interim Report of 22 October 1993 in Case IV/34.463
ruary 1999 is to be regarded as containing a final decision                 -VPRT/Deutsche Telekom, in which the Commission
rejecting the complaint                                                     undertook a task that was not its own and acted outside
                                                                            the scope of its obligations under Article 155 and under
                                                                            Regulation No 17/62. The Commission has thus, without
— because it is exclusively based upon a definition of cable                there being any necessity or justification by virtue of the
    distribution as comprising two different services, one                  VPRT case, and without consulting third parties, implicitly,
    rendered to the satellite broadcaster and the other to the              but already definitively, granted its authorisation to Deuts-
    cable-connected household, which leads automatically to                 che Telekom to levy the contested tariff against satellite
    the conclusion that a commercial provider of these two                  broadcasters.
    services may request separate remuneration from their
    respective beneficiaries;
— because the Commission’s definition of cable distribution
    is not limited to Deutsche Telekom but covers all cable
    operators wherever they may be established in the Com-
    munity;
                                                                        Action brought on 26 April 1999 by ‘L’ against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
— because the Commission had already arrived at its defi-
    nition of cable distribution as comprising two separate                                     (Case T-102/99)
    services and at the principle of the tariff against satellite
    broadcasters in a so-called Interim Report of 22nd October
    1993 in Case No IV/34.463 VPRT/Deutsche Telekom.                                            (1999/C 188/67)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant’s pleas are:
                                                                        An action was brought on 26 April 1999 before the Court of
— infringement of Articles 60 and 86 of the EC Treaty                   First Instance of the European Communities by ‘L’, represented
                                                                        by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique
                                                                        Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
    The Commission perpetrates a confusion between the                  Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue
    economic advantage that the authorised use by one                   de Cessange.
    undertaking of the product of another undertaking may
    generate for the latter and the notion of a ‘service’. In the
    case of cable distribution no service is being offered by the       The applicant claims that the Court should:
    cable operator to the broadcaster. On the contrary, the
    cable operator himself chooses, from among the pro-                 — annul the decisions rejecting the applicant’s requests of
    grammes already present on the radio and satellite waves,               25 February 1998 for recognition of his status as a
    those signals with which he wishes to compose his cable                 ‘registered partner’ and of 11 May 1998 for the extension
    offerings to the cable-connected households, if and when                to himself and his partner of all the rights, privileges and
    he obtains the corresponding broadcasters’ authorisations               benefits conferred on married officials and their spouses,
    to have their signals so retransmitted via cable. The sole
    service offered and supplied against remuneration is the
    cable offering to the cable-connected household.                    — order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 188/30               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      3.7.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that the Commission is under a duty to                The applicant contests, as he does in Cases T-7/98 (1) and
recognise his personal status under the partnership contract               T-208/98, (2) the defendant’s decision to accept his resignation
lawfully entered into by him in the Netherlands. To the extent             and to bring to an end the employment relationship.
that, under the law of the Netherlands, the institution of
‘registered partnership’ gives rise, for him and his partner, to
rights and obligations which are broadly similar to those                  In support of his application, the applicant claims:
arising under a marriage contract, he submits that his rights
under the Staff Regulations and those of his partner should be             — his resignation is null and void on grounds of mental
determined so as to accord with those conferred on his married                 incapacity. In his view, the resignation was tendered when
colleagues under the Community rules.                                          he was in a state of depression, brought on by, among
                                                                               other factors, the psychological pressures he was under;
In the applicant’s submission, the Commission’s refusal to
recognise his status as a registered partner:                              — that, when an employee who tenders his resignation offers
                                                                               to continue working also during the period of notice, the
— infringes the principle enshrined in Article 4 of the EC                     employment relationship continues to produce its full legal
     Treaty that the institutions are to exercise the powers                   and economic effects until the end of such period.
     conferred on them;
— infringes the principle of the uniform nature of the                     On the latter point, the applicant explains that he was ill from
     personal status of Community nationals;                               28 September 1998 to 6 December 1998, from 8 January
                                                                           1999 to 7 February 1999 and since 15 February 1999, and
— infringes the principles of equal treatment and freedom of               that the period of notice ran from 7 December 1998 (when he
     movement for workers;                                                 returned to work after the first period of sick leave), and that,
                                                                           of the three months to which he was entitled, he had worked
— infringes the right to respect for private life and thus                 for only 38 days, including part of ordinary annual leave.
     Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of            Therefore, the applicant was entitled to work for a further
     Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and                            63 days. Accordingly, the letter of 25 February 1999 and the
                                                                           subsequent conduct of the EIB could only be described as
— infringes Articles 27, 62, 71, 72 et seq. and 77 et seq. of              unfair dismissal.
     the Staff Regulations.
                                                                           (1) De Nicola v EIB (OJ 1998 C 94, p. 30).
                                                                           (2) De Nicola v EIB (OJ 1999 C 71, p. 31).
Action brought on 2 May 1999 by Carlo De Nicola against
                   European Investment Bank
                         (Case T-109/99)
                         (1999/C 188/68)                                           Removal from the register of Case T-46/96 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 188/69)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought                                    (Language of the case: English)
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 2 May 1999 by Carlo De Nicola, represented by Luigi Isola
of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at              By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the Fifth
the address of Cesare Berloni, 59 Route de Longwy.                         Chamber, Extended composition, of the Court of First Instance
                                                                           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                the register of Case T-46/96 Whirlpool Sweden AB and
                                                                           Whirlpool SMC Microwave Products Development Ltd v
— annul the letter of 25 February 1999 whereby the EIB                     Council of the European Union.
     dismissed the applicant, together with all connected,
     preceding and subsequent acts;
— order the defendant EIB to pay the costs.                                (1) OJ No C 180 of 22.6.1996.


title: Case C-305/03: Action brought on 16 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
20.9.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 226/7
Action brought on 2 July 2003 by the Italian Republic                      B. Infringement of Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           According to the applicant, the final date for eligibility of
                          (Case C-301/03)                                  expenditure relating to programming complements is fixed,
                                                                           with no possibility of derogation, by the general regulation.
                          (2003/C 226/10)                                  The specific provisions of that regulation imply normal
                                                                           retroactivity from the moment of contribution from the
                                                                           Funds (the date on which the Commission receives an applica-
An action against the Commission of the European                           tion for assistance) unless there are changes affecting the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                 facts set out in the decision to grant a contribution from the
European Communities on 2 July 2003 by the Italian Republic,               Funds.
represented by I. M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and G. Aiello,
avvocato dello Stato.                                                      The Commission, on the other hand, has determined that,
                                                                           where modifications are made to a programming complement,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                the starting date for the eligibility of expenditure is established
                                                                           by the Surveillance Committee and may not precede the
                                                                           decision of the Committee approving the amendment in
—     annul the act of the Commission reference CDRR-03-                   question. The modified programming complement must
      0013-00-it (document 4), referred to in the notes of the             specify the starting date for the eligibility of new expenditure
      Commission described below as an act ‘communicated                   occasioned by the modification.
      officially to the Member States on the occasion of the
      meeting of the Advisory Committee for the                            If the Commission's view were to be applied, Article 30(2) of
      Development and Conversion of Regions of 23 April                    the regulation would loose all preceptive force because any
      2003’ (note of 2 June 2003, No 107135) and the note                  programming complement that implements the assistance
      of 14 May 2003 no 106387 (document 6), received on                   approved by decision of the Commission would postpone
      15 May 2003, whereby the Directorate for Regional                    the date for the eligibility of expenditure and the starting date
      Operations in France, Greece and Italy within the                    for the eligibility of expenditure fixed by the regulation would
      Directorate-General for Regional Policy of the European              never be used.
      Commission gave notice of its decision on the final date
      for the eligibility of expenditure relating to modifications
      to the programming complements for POR Sardegna                      C. The applicant claims that the acts complained of are unlaw-
      2000-2006; the note of 28 May 2003 No 107051                         ful because they lack any proper legal base and constitute
      (document 7), received on 2 June 2003, whereby the                   an abuse of power involving the perversion of proceedings,
      Directorate for Regional Operations in France, Greece                lack of jurisdiction, and infringement of the regulation by the
      and Italy within the Directorate-General for Regional                Commission.
      Policy of the European Commission gave notice of its
      decision on the final date for the eligibility of expenditure
      relating to modifications to the programming comple-
      ments for POR Sicilia 2000-2006; the note of 2 June
                                                                           (1) Received probably on 30 June 2003.
      2003 No 107135 (document 8), received in 2003 (1),
                                                                           (2) OJ L 161 of 26.6.1999, p. 1.
      whereby the Directorate for Regional Operations in
      France, Greece and Italy within the Directorate-General
      for Regional Policy of the European Commission gave
      notice of its decision on the final date for the eligibility
      of expenditure relating to modifications to the program-
      ming complements for DOCUP Lazio 2000-2006, toge-
      ther with all connected acts and decisions;                          Action brought on 16 July 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities against the United Kingdom of
                                                                                Great Britain and Northern Ireland
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case C-305/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (2003/C 226/11)
A. Infringement of Articles 15 and 34 of Regulation (EC)                   An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
No 1260/1999 (2)                                                           Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities on 16 July 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities, represented by Richard Lyal, acting
By the acts in issue the Commission actively intervened in the             as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
process of modifying programming complements, or in other
words, the actual management of programming. That is not                   The Applicant claims that the Court should:
within its remit, as defined by the regulation cited and the
Commission had no powers and transgressed into a sphere of                 1)   declare that by applying a reduced rate of value added tax
competence not its own.                                                         to the commission paid to auctioneers on the sale by
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/8               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                              20.9.2003
     auction of works of art, antiques and collectors" items            Social and Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social on the
     imported under temporary importation arrangements,                 following questions:
     the United Kingdom has failed to comply with its obliga-
     tions under Articles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3) and 16(1) of
     the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 (1) on the
     harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
     turnover taxes;
                                                                        1.    Do Article 12 and Articles 39 to 42 of the Treaty
                                                                              Establishing the European Community and Article 45 of
2)   order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                               Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1),
                                                                              preclude a national provision under which retirement con-
                                                                              tributions which the unemployment benefit agency pays
                                                                              on behalf of a worker during the period in which he
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              receives certain unemployment benefits are not to be
                                                                              taken into account for the purposes of completing the
                                                                              various qualifying periods established in the national legis-
The Commission takes the view, that by not taxing the auction-                lation and of conferring entitlement to the old-age pen-
eer's profit margin on imported works of art, collectors"                     sion, when, because of a long period of unemployment,
items and antiques at the standard rate, the United Kingdom                   supposedly protected, it is absolutely impossible for that
has failed to comply with its obligations under the above                     worker to obtain credit for retirement contributions other
mentioned articles of the Sixth VAT Directive.                                than those which are invalidated by law, with the result
                                                                              that only workers who have exercised the right to freedom
                                                                              of movement are affected by that provision of national law
In the Commission's view, there are two taxable events for                    and are unable to qualify for the national retirement pen-
VAT purposes in cases of importation and sale by auction: an                  sion, despite the fact that, under Article 45 of the afore-
importation of goods within the meaning of Article 7(1) and                   mentioned EEC Regulation, those qualifying periods would
a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 26(a).                        have to be regarded as completed?
Contrary to the view held by the United Kingdom, the VAT
system does not imply double taxation, because it is not
required that VAT at the import rate should first be charged            2.    Do Article 12 and Articles 39 to 42 of the Treaty
on the total value of the goods after the sale, and then be                   Establishing the Community and Article 48(1) of Council
charged again at the standard rate on the auctioneer's profit                 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 preclude
margin.                                                                       national provisions under which retirement contributions
                                                                              which the unemployment benefit agency pays on behalf of
                                                                              a worker during the period in which he receives certain
                                                                              unemployment benefits are not to be taken into account
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                  for the purposes of determining whether the total duration
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turn-          of insurance periods or periods of residence covered by the
    over taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of           legislation of that Member State amounts to one year,
    assessment, OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                    when, because of a long period of unemployment, suppos-
                                                                              edly protected, it is absolutely impossible for that worker
                                                                              to obtain credit for retirement contributions other than
                                                                              those which fall due and are paid during unemployment,
                                                                              so that only workers who have exercised the right to free-
                                                                              dom of movement are affected by that provision of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo                       national law and are unable to qualify for the national
Social No 3 de Orense by order of that Court of 24 June                       retirement pension, despite the fact that, under Article 48
2003 in the case of Cristalina Salgado Alonso against                         (1) of the aforementioned EEC Regulation, the national
Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesoreria                       benefit agency could not be alleviated of the obligation
                General de la Seguridad Social                                to award national benefits?
                        (Case C-306/03)
                        (2003/C 226/12)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo                  (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on
Social No 3 de Orense (Social Court No 3, Orense) of                        the application of social security schemes to employed persons and
24 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on 17 July                     their families moving within the Community (English special edi-
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Cristalina                    tion: Series II Chapter 1971(II), p. 416).
Salgado Alonso against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad


title: Assignment of Judges to the Chambers

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/14

         Assignment of Judges to the Chambers
   (2006/C 190/24)
   On 5 July 2006, the Court of First Instance decided to establish five Chambers of five Judges and five Chambers of three Judges for the period from 1 October 2006 to 31 August 2007 and to assign Judges to them as follows:

                  First Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
               Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Cooke, Mr García-Valdecasas, Ms Labucka and Ms Trstenjak, Judges;

                  First Chamber, sitting with three judges:
               Mr Cooke, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas, Ms Labucka and Ms Trstenjak, Judges;

                  Second Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
               Mr Pirrung, President of Chamber, Mr Meij, Mr Forwood, Ms Pelikánová and Mr Papasavvas, Judges;

                  Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
               Mr Pirrung, President of Chamber

                           (a)

                           Mr Meij and Ms Pelikánová, Judges;

                           (b)

                           Mr Forwood and Mr Papasavvas, Judges;

                  Third Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
               Mr Jaeger, President of Chamber, Ms Tiili, Mr Azizi, Ms Cremona and Mr Czúcz, Judges;

                  Third Chamber, sitting with three judges:
               Mr Jaeger, President of Chamber

                           (a)

                           Ms Tiili and Mr Czúcz, Judges;

                           (b)

                           Mr Azizi and Ms Cremona, Judges;

                  Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five judges:
               Mr Legal, President of Chamber, Ms Lindh, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Vadapalas and Mr Moavero Milanesi, Judges;

                  Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
               Mr Legal, President of Chamber

                           (a)

                           Ms Lindh and Mr Vadapalas, Judges;

                           (b)

                           Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka and Mr Moavero Milanesi, Judges;

                  Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five judges:

               Mr Vilaras, President of Chamber, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Dehousse, Mr Šváby and Ms Jürimäe, Judges;

                  Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
               Mr Vilaras, President of Chamber

                           (a)

                           Ms Martins Ribeiro and Ms Jürimäe, Judges;

                           (b)

                           Mr Dehousse and Mr Šváby, Judges.

         In the First Chamber sitting with three Judges, the Judges who sit with the President of the Chamber to make up the Chamber will be designated in turn, in the order provided for by Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, subject to the presence of connected cases. In the Second to Fifth Chambers sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber will sit either with the Judges referred to at (a) above or with those referred to at (b) above, depending on which of those formations the Judge-Rapporteur belongs to. For cases in which the President of the Chamber is the Judge-Rapporteur, the President of the Chamber will sit with the Judges of one or other of those formations alternately in accordance with the order in which the cases are registered, subject to the presence of connected cases.
   In cases where the written procedure was completed and a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed before 1 October 2006, the First Chamber sitting with three Judges shall continue to sit with the same composition as previously for the oral procedure, the deliberation and the judgment.
   Composition of the Grand Chamber
   On 5 July 2006 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that for the period from 1 October 2006 to 31 August 2007 the 13 Judges of whom the Grand Chamber is composed shall be the President of the Court of First Instance, the Presidents of the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers, Extended Compositions, the Judges of the Chamber, Extended Composition, who would have had to hear the case in question if it had been assigned to a Chamber composed of five Judges, and as many other Judges as necessary to complete the Grand Chamber, designated by the President of the Court of First Instance, from among the Judges of each of the other Chambers, in the order of precedence of those Judges within their Chambers according to seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in a rota applied during the period of three years for which the Presidents of the Chambers composed of five Judges are elected.
   Plenary session
   On 5 July 2006 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that where, following the designation of an Advocate General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there is an even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the rota established in advance, applied during the period of three years for which the Presidents of the Chambers composed of five Judges are elected, in accordance with which the President of the Court is to designate the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in reverse order to the order in which the Judges rank according to their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it is the Judge ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.
   Designation of the Judge replacing the President of the Court of First Instance as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures
   On 5 July 2006 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure, to designate Judge García-Valdecasas to replace the President of the Court of First Instance for the purpose of deciding applications for interim measures where the latter is absent or prevented from dealing with them, in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 31 August 2007.
   Criteria for assigning cases to Chambers
   On 5 July 2006 the Court of First Instance laid down criteria as follows for the assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period from 1 October 2006 to 31 August 2006, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure:

               1.

               Cases shall be assigned, as soon as applications have been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to Chambers of three Judges.

               2.

               Cases shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following three separate rotas, namely:

                           —

                           for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures;

                           —

                           for cases concerning the intellectual property rights referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

                           —

                           for all other cases.

         In applying those rotas, the First Chamber shall not be taken into consideration at each fifth turn.
   The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.


title: Case T-815/14: Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Closet Clothing v OHIM — Closed Holding (CLOSET)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/62

         Order of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Closet Clothing v OHIM — Closed Holding (CLOSET)
   (Case T-815/14) (1)

   (2015/C 311/71)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.


title: Case T-71/02: Action brought on 14 March 2002 by Classen Holding KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
29.6.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 156/27
Action brought on 14 March 2002 by Classen Holding                      Action brought on 19 March 2002 by Tetra Laval B.V.
KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                   against the Commission of the European Communities
                             Market
                                                                                (Case T-80/02)
                         (Case T-71/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 156/54)
                        (2002/C 156/53)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                          (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 March 2002 by Classen Holding                European Communities on 19 March 2002 by Tetra Laval
KG, represented by Mr Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen of                 B.V., represented by Mr Alexandre Vandencasteele and Mr
Rospatt Osten Pross Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf (Germany).                Denis Waelbroeck (Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff), Mr
                                                                        Andreas Weitbrecht, (Latham & Watkins) and Mr Sven Völcker
                                                                        (Wilmer Cutler & Pickering) of Brussels (Belgium).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Office dated 14 December 2001 (Appeal No. R0810/
      1999-2), registered letter of notification of the Decision
      received on 14 January 2002;                                      —      annul the contested Decision in its entirety;
—     order the Office to bear the costs of the action.                 —      order the Commission to pay the costs of the procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant of the Com-         International Paper Company
munity trade mark:
                                                                        The applicant in the present case is primarily active in
Trade mark concerned:         Word           mark         BECKET        carton packaging. It envisaged a concentration with another
                              EXPRESSION — Application No               company, Sidel, mainly active in (polyester) packaging equip-
                              93880 for certain goods in                ment. This concentration was declared to be incompatible
                              class 16                                  with the common market and the EEA Agreement by the
                                                                        Commission. The applicant has introduced an application for
Proprietor of an oppos-       Classen Holding KG                        annulment of this Decision (Case T-5/02; Communication
ing trade mark or sign:                                                 published in OJ C 68, p. 19).
Opposing trade mark or        Word mark Expression for certain
sign:                         goods in class 16                         In the present case, the applicant contests the decision of the
                                                                        Commission to oblige the applicant to sell Sidel as a measure
Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition               taken to restore the conditions of effective competition
sition Division:                                                        pursuant to Article 8(4) of Council Regulation 4064/89 (1)
                                                                        (Merger Control Regulation).
Decision of the Board of      To declare the appeal inadmissible
Appeal:                       and reject the request for restitutio
                              in integrum
                                                                        The applicant submits in the first place that the contested
Pleas in law relied on:       Incorrect interpretation of Article       Decision is devoid of any basis, as it is the direct consequence
                              78 of Council Regulation No 40/           of the earlier Decision declaring the concentration incompat-
                              94 — Infringement of the appli-           ible with the common market. This earlier Decision being void
                              cant’s right to due process of law        itself, according to the applicant, it cannot serve as basis for
                                                                        the Decision contested in this case. The applicant refers in this
                                                                        respect to the pleas and arguments stated in its application in
                                                                        case T-5/02.


title: Case C-470/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Garkalns SIA v Rīgas dome (Article 49 EC — Restrictions on freedom to provide services — Equal treatment — Obligation of transparency — Betting and gaming — Casinos, amusement arcades and bingo halls — Obligation to obtain the prior agreement of the municipality of the place of establishment — Discretion — Substantial impairment of the interests of the State and of the residents of the administrative area concerned — Justifications — Proportionality)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/16

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās Tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Garkalns SIA v Rīgas dome
   (Case C-470/11) (1)

   (Article 49 EC - Restrictions on freedom to provide services - Equal treatment - Obligation of transparency - Betting and gaming - Casinos, amusement arcades and bingo halls - Obligation to obtain the prior agreement of the municipality of the place of establishment - Discretion - Substantial impairment of the interests of the State and of the residents of the administrative area concerned - Justifications - Proportionality)
   2012/C 295/27
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās Tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Garkalns SIA

      Defendant: Rīgas dome

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU (Article 49 EC) — National legislation providing, for the purpose of limiting betting and gaming, a system of authorisation for the establishment of casinos, amusement arcades and bingo halls — Refusal to grant authorisation for the development of an amusement arcade on the ground that the organisation of betting and gaming in the premises envisaged would substantially impair the interests of the residents of the local area

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 EC must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on local authorities a broad discretion in enabling them to refuse authorisation to open a casino, amusement arcade or bingo hall on grounds of ‘substantial impairment of the interests of the State and of the residents of the administrative area concerned’, provided that that legislation is genuinely intended to reduce opportunities for gambling and to limit activities in that domain in a consistent and systematic manner or to ensure the maintenance of public order and in so far as the competent authorities exercise their powers of discretion in a transparent manner, so that the impartiality of the authorisation procedures can be monitored, it being for the national court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Appeal brought on 3 February 1996 by Giovanni Battista Abello and Others and Gerhard Riesch against the jugdment delivered on 7 December 1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-544/93 and T-566/93 between Giovanni Battista Abello and Others and Gerhard Riesch and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union (Case C-30/96 P)

text:
13 . 4 . 96        I EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 108 /3
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                       ( Third Chamber )                                European Communities on 3 February 1996 by Giovanni
                                                                        Battista Abello and Others and Gerhard Riesch, represented
                     of 8 February 1996                                 by Michele Tamburini and Franco Colussi , Avvocati , with
in Case C-202/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                   an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
made by the Gerechtshof, 's-Hertogenbosch ): Criminal                   Franco Colussi at 36 Rue de Wiltz .
     proceedings against Godefridus van der Feesten ( 1 )
(Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild               The appellants claim that the Court should :
birds — Scope — Protected species — Application of the
Directive to a subspecies not occurring naturally in the wild           — set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
       in the European territory of the Member States)                      7 December 1995 in Joined Cases T-544/93 and
                           ( 96/C 108 /04 )                                 T-566/93 and proceed to judgment in those cases or
                                                                            refer them back to the Court of First Instance for a
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                               judgment granting the forms of order sought at first
                                                                            instance , namely that the court should :
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                          — order the Commission to give precise details of the
                                                                                headings, surveys and prices on the basis of which it
In Case C-202/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                                determined the basic exchange rates used in order to
                                                                                fix the weightings refèrred to in Regulations ( EEC,
of the EC Treaty by the Gerechtshof ( Regional Court                            Euratom, ECSC ) No 3761 /92 ('), ( EEC , Euratom,
of Appeal ), ' s-Hertogenbosch ( the Netherlands ), for a                       ECSC ) No 3765/92 ( 2 ) and ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC )
preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that                      No 3766/92 ( 3 ),
court against Godefridus van der Feesten — on the
interpretation of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
 1979 on the conservation of wild birds ( OJ 1979 L 103 , p . 1 )
                                                                            — make an assessment of the suitability of those
— the Court (Third Chamber ), composed of: J. -P.
                                                                                headings, surveys and prices, and of the conclusions
                                                                                drawn from them in order to fix the abovementioned
 Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho
                                                                                weightings ,
 de Almeida and C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur), Judges;
 N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy
 Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                      — declare that the applicants' remuneration, as given in
 8 February 1996 , the operative part of which is as                            the salary slips for December 1992 et seq., does not
 follows :                                                                      correspond to what is owed to them and that
                                                                                Regulations ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 3761 /92 ,
                                                                                ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 3765/92 and ( EEC,
 Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the                            Euratom, ECSC ) No 3766/92 therefore do not apply
 conservation of wild birds applies to bird subspecies which                    to them,
 occur naturally in the wild only outside the European
 territory of the Member States if the species to which they
                                                                            — declare those salary slips to be unlawful and annul
 belong or other subspecies of that species occur naturally in                  them,
 the wild within the terrirtory in question .
                                                                             — annul the Commission's decision of 12 August 1993
 (') OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                                                rejecting the complaint submitted by Gerhard Riesch
                                                                                under Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                             — order any measure which may be considered
                                                                                appropriate as a result,
 Appeal brought on 3 February 1996 by Giovanni Battista
 Abello and Others and Gerhard Riesch against the jugdment                   — order the Commission to pay the sums due and to
 delivered on 7 December 1995 by the Fourth Chamber of                           pay compensation for any loss ( including loss
 the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                      resulting from currency depreciation in the
 Joined Cases T-544/93 and T-566/93 between Giovanni                             intervening period from the due date of payment ),
 Battista Abello and Others and Gerhard Riesch and the                           together with the costs of the case, to be calculated by
  Commission of the European Communities, supported by                           reference to the maximum permitted under the
              the Council of the European Union                                  Italian legal fee structure currently in force .
                         ( Case C-30/96 P)
                             ( 96/C 108/05 )                             Pleas and main arguments adduced in support:
  An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 December                 The appellants challenge the judgment of the Court of First
  1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance              Instance on the ground that it constitutes a manifest
  of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-544/93 and               infringement of Community law .
  T-566/93 , between Giovanni Battista Abello and Others
  and Gerhard Riesch and the Commission of the European                  The judgment of the Court of First Instance is contrary to
  Communities, supported by the Council of the European                  the fundamental principles of legal procedure , such as the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 108 /4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13 . 4 . 96
right to a fair hearing, the right of each party to be heard, the        impervious merely in theory, or impervious in theory and in
principle of the equality of both parties before the court and           practice ?
the obligation to give an adequate statement of reasons . In
any event, the Court of First Instance failed :                          (') OJ 1985 L 15 , p . 16 .
— to allow the appellants access to the data on the basis of
       which the Commission determined the basic exchange
       rates used in order to fix the weightings referred to in the      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile
       Regulations at issue and, consequently, to enable the             e Penale di Venezia by order of that court of 2 February
       appellants to submit observations in that regard ,                         1996 in the case of Immobiliare S.I.F. SpA v.
                                                                                Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato
— to make an accurate and impartial examination of all the
       information relevant to the cases,                                                           ( Case C-42/ 96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 108/07
— to take into account many of the arguments adduced by
       the appellants,                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Tribunale Civile
— to give reasons — or, at any rate, to give adequate                    e Penale di Venezia ( Civil and Criminal Court, Venice ) of
       reasons — for its own decision, which is based on                 2 February 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry
       assertions which not only disregard the points made by            on 13 February 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
       the appellants, but are also, in more than one instance,          Immobiliare S.I. F. SpA v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
       tautologous and/or subjective .                                   dello Stato, in which the Court is requested to :
The Court of First Instance has not only failed to comply                'give a ruling on the question concerning the application of
with obligations specifically incumbent upon it, but has                 Articles 4, 7 and 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
also, by making such a ruling, enabled a factual situation to            17 July 1969 (^ concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
persist which is contrary to Community law.                              capital, as amended by Council Directive 73/80/EEC of
                                                                         9 April 1973 ( 2 ) in the case brought by the plaintiff and on
(') OJ No L 383 of 29 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .                              whether the application of those provisions precludes the
( 2 ) Ibid ., p . 9 .                                                    charging of any other taxation, in particular the taxes
( 3 ) Ibid ., p . 11 .                                                   charged by the Italian Registry Office, including Invim
                                                                         (Imposta communale sull'incremento di valore dei beni
                                                                         immobili — municipal tax on the increase in value of
                                                                         immovables ); if so, is the applicable rate 2 % or the reduced
                                                                         rate ?'
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
Hamburg by order of that court of 4 October 1995 in the                  (') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( II ), p . 412 .
       case of V.A.G. Hàndlerbeirat e . V. v. SYD-Consult                ( 2 ) OJ 1973 L 103 , p . 15 .
                           ( Case C-41 /96 )
                             ( 96/C 108 /06 )
                                                                         Action brought on 15 February 1996 by the Federal
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
European Communities by an order of the Landgericht                                           European Communities
( Regional Court) Hamburg of 4 October 1995 , which was                                               Case C-46/96 )
received at the Court Registry on 13 February 1996 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of V.A.G. Hàndlerbeirat e.V.                                           ( 96/C 108/08 )
v . SYD-Consult on the following question:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
in the light of the judgment of the Court of Justice of
                                                                         European Communities on 15 February 1 996 by the Federal
 13 January 1994 in Case C-376/92 Metro SB-Grotëmàrkte
v. Cartier, is it compatible with Community law, in
                                                                         Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Rôder,
                                                                         Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Economic
particular with the principle of the unrestricted and uniform            Affairs .
application of Community law, if German national law
applies in such a way that proceedings for an injunction                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
restraining the distribution of products covered by a
selective distribution system exempted from application of               — annul Decision (K 95 ) 3319 final of the Commission of
Article 85 ( 1 ) by a block exemption of the Commission of                     29 November 1995 concerning fiscal aid in the field of
the European Communities (') may be brought against                            depreciation favouring German undertakings ( J ),
outsiders who obtain those products outside such a selective
distribution system only if — in addition to satisfying the              — order the defendant to pay the costs .
 further requirements of Paragraph 1 of the Gesetz gegen den             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 unlauteren Wettbewerb ( Law against Unfair Competition,
UWG ) — the selective distribution system is impervious                  Infringement of the EC Treaty ( the constituent criteria
 ( liickenlos ), specific reference being made to the alternative        laid down in Article 92 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty are not
 of the selective distribution system being required to be               fulfilled ):


title: Case C-535/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — Vadzim Ipatau v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against the Republic of Belarus — Admissibility — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Legal aid — Suspensory effect — Effective judicial protection — Rights of the defence — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/17

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 June 2015 — Vadzim Ipatau v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-535/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against the Republic of Belarus - Admissibility - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Legal aid - Suspensory effect - Effective judicial protection - Rights of the defence - Principle of proportionality))
   (2015/C 279/20)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Vadzim Ipatau (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: F. Naert and B. Driessen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Vadzim Ipatau to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/1

         2009/C 141/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 129, 6.6.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 113, 16.5.2009

      OJ C 102, 1.5.2009

      OJ C 90, 18.4.2009

      OJ C 82, 4.4.2009

      OJ C 69, 21.3.2009

      OJ C 55, 7.3.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-340/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 7 July 2015 — Christine Nigl and Others

text:
               5.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzgericht (Austria) lodged on 7 July 2015 — Christine Nigl and Others
   (Case C-340/15)
   (2015/C 328/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Christine Nigl, Gisela Nigl sen., Gisela Nigl jun., Josef Nigl jun., Martin Nigl

      Authority concerned: Finanzamt Waldviertel

      Questions referred
       (1)
       (2)

               1.

               Do three associations of persons constitute three independent traders (taxable persons) where those associations consist of different members of one family, conduct themselves outwardly as such independently in relation to their suppliers and to public authorities, possess their own production facilities, with the exception of two business assets, but market under a common trade mark the greater part of their products through a limited company whose shares are held by the members of the associations of persons and other members of the family?

               2.

               If the three associations of persons are not to be regarded as three independent traders (taxable persons), is any of the following to be regarded as an independent trader (taxable person):

                           a)

                           the marketing company, or

                           b)

                           an association of persons consisting of the members of the three associations of persons, which does not conduct itself as such on the market in relation either to suppliers or to customers, or

                           c)

                           an association of persons consisting of the three associations of persons and the limited company, which does not conduct itself as such on the market in relation either to suppliers or to customers?

               3.

               If the three associations of persons are not to be regarded as three independent traders (taxable persons), is the refusal of the status of a trader (taxable person)

                           a)

                           retrospective,

                           b)

                           only for the future,

                           c)

                           not permissible at all
                           if the associations of persons were at first, after investigations by the tax authorities, recognised by the Tax Office as independent traders (taxable persons)?

               4.

               If the three associations of persons are to be regarded as three independent traders (taxable persons), are they, as wine growers and therefore farmers, flat-rate farmers if each of those associations of persons which cooperate in practice is in itself covered by the flat-rate scheme for farmers, but the limited company, an association of persons formed of the members of the three associations of persons or an association of persons formed of the limited company and the members of the three associations of persons is, under national law, not covered by the flat-rate scheme on account of the size of the business or its legal form?

               5.

               If the flat-rate scheme for farmers is in principle excluded for the three associations of persons, is that exclusion:

                           a)

                           retrospective,

                           b)

                           only for the future, or

                           c)

                           not effective at all?

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

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


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 29 June 2004 in Case C-486/01 P: Front National v European Parliament (Appeal — Statement of formation of a group within the meaning of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament — Lack of political affinities — Retroactive dissolution of the TDI Group — Cross-appeal — Interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC — Meaning of decision of ‘direct and individual’ concern to a natural or legal person — Inadmissibility of action brought by a national political party)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 29 June 2004
   in Case C-486/01 P: Front National v European Parliament (1)

   (Appeal - Statement of formation of a group within the meaning of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament - Lack of political affinities - Retroactive dissolution of the TDI Group - Cross-appeal - Interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC - Meaning of decision of ‘direct and individual’ concern to a natural or legal person - Inadmissibility of action brought by a national political party)
   (2004/C 217/01)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-486/01 P: Front National, established at Saint-Cloud (France) (avocats: F. Wagner and V. de Poulpiquet de Brescanvel) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 2 October 2001 in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99 and T-329/99 Martinez and Others v Parliament [2001] ECR II-2823, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents: G. Garzón Clariana, J. Schoo and H. Krück) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), A. Rosas, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 2 October 2001 in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99 and T-329/99 Martinez and Others v Parliament in so far as it declared admissible the action brought by the Front National (Case T-327/99);

               2.

               Dismisses as inadmissible the action brought by the Front National for annulment of the European Parliament's Decision of 14 September 1999 concerning the interpretation of Rule 29(1) of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure and dissolving with retroactive effect the ‘Groupe technique des députés indépendants (TDI) – Groupe mixte’;

               3.

               Finds that there is no longer any need to adjudicate on the appeal brought by the Front National against the judgment referred to in paragraph 1 of the operative part of this judgment;

               4.

               Orders the Front National to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament both in these proceedings and in the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.


title: Case T-164/12: Action brought on 10 April 2012 — Alstom and Others v Commission

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/32

         Action brought on 10 April 2012 — Alstom and Others v Commission
   (Case T-164/12)
   2012/C 165/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Alstom (Levallois Perret, France); Alstom Holdings (Levallois Perret); Alstom Grid SAS (Paris, France); and Alstom Grid AG (Oberentfelden, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Derenne, lawyer, N. Heaton, P. Chaplin and M. Farley, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 26 January 2012 contained in letters no D/2012/006840 and no D/2012/006863 to transmit certain documents to the High Court of England and Wales that were submitted by the applicants (or their predecessors) to the Commission during the course of the investigation in Case COMP/F/38.899 — Gas Insulated Switchgear (OJ 2008 C 5, p. 7);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the transmission of the documents in question to the High Court of England and Wales would:

                           —

                           constitute an error of fact and result in the disclosure of leniency material contained in such documents, which, in violation of Article 4(3) TEU, would undermine the interests of the European Union and interfere with its functioning and independence, in particular by jeopardising the overall effectiveness of the Commission’s leniency programme that is so paramount to the Commission’s ability to accomplish its task of enforcing Article 101 TFEU;

                           —

                           violate the general principle of right to be heard and in particular paragraph 26 of the Cooperation Notice (1) as the Commission failed to seek the consent of the concerned companies to disclose the leniency material contained in such documents;

                           —

                           violate the Commission’s duty to give reasons under Article 296 TFEU as it implicitly rejected the applicants’ claims that certain parts of the documents in question constitute leniency material without stating any reasons.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the decision should be annulled on the grounds that:

                           —

                           transmitting the confidential information contained in the documents in question to the High Court of England and Wales for the purposes of use in the English proceedings cannot be justified on the basis of Article 4(3) TEU, as disclosure of such information will discourage undertakings in the future from co-operating with the Commission in its investigations and thereby interfere with the Commission’s ability to enforce competition law;

                           —

                           transmitting the confidential information contained in the documents in question to the High Court of England and Wales when that Court has expressly informed the Commission that it intends to disclose such information to third parties that are members of a confidentiality ring breaches paragraph 25 of the Cooperation Notice;

                           —

                           the protection afforded by the confidentiality ring in this case falls below the standards required by Article 339 TFEU and paragraph 25 of the Cooperation Notice. Disclosure of the confidential information contained in the documents in question to the High Court of England and Wales would, therefore, breach the Commission’s obligations under these principles.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the decision to transmit such documents to the High Court of England and Wales violates the principle of proportionality as it was neither appropriate nor necessary for the Commission to transmit the confidential version of such documents together with its annexes to the English High Court, even though the annexes are not relevant to the central issues which the English High Court will have to address and the General Court redacted from its judgment in Case T-121/07 all references to the content of these documents.

      (1)  Commission Notice on the cooperation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States in the application of Articles 81 and 82 EC (OJ 2004 C 101, p. 54)


17.7.1999               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 204/35
2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                     Removal from the register of Case C-320/97 (1)
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                                      (1999/C 204/74)
submitted in Case C-168/99 (2), the period prescribed in
Article 14(2) of the directive expired on 27 June 1997.               By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case C-320/97: Commission of the
(1) OJ 1995 L 143, p. 75.                                             European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(2) See this OJ, p. 28.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 331 of 1.11.1997.
       Removal from the register of Case C-330/98 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-5/99 (1)
                         (1999/C 204/71)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/75)
By order of 10 March 1999 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-330/98 (reference for a preliminary       Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): The Wellcome Foun-             from the register of Case C-5/99 (reference for a preliminary
dation Ltd v Nycomed Austria GmbH.                                    ruling from the Landgericht Regensburg): Business registry
                                                                      case relating to Firma Wiesenhof Geflügelspezialitäten, a
                                                                      branch of Lohmann & Co. AG.
(1) OJ No C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ No C 86 of 27.3.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-186/97 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-245/98 (1)
                         (1999/C 204/72)                                                      (1999/C 204/76)
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Court of               By order of 19 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the register of Case C-186/97: Commission of the                 the register of Case C-245/98: Commission of the European
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.                   Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                         (1) OJ No C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-398/96 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case     C-192/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/77)
                         (1999/C 204/73)
                                                                      By order of 21 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 18 March 1999 the President of the Second                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities           the register of Case C-398/96 (reference for a preliminary
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-192/97:           ruling from Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio):
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic             Associazione Produttori Vitivinicoli della Provincia di Treviso
of Germany.                                                           and Others v Ministero delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e
                                                                      Forestali (Ministero per le Politche Agricole).
(1) OJ No C 212 of 12.7.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 26 March 1999 in Case T-114/96 Biscuiterie-confiserie LOR SA and Another v Commission of the European Communities and Another (Actions for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 - Registration of geographical indications - 'Turrón de Jijona' and 'Turrón de Alicante' - Locus standi - Inadmissible)

text:
C 188/26                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          3.7.1999
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               whose registered office is at Cabestany (France), represented
                                                                           by Nicolas Boespflug, of the Paris Bar, 22 Rue Lalo, Paris, v
                         of 17 March 1999                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agents: José Luis
                                                                           Iglesias Buhigues and Jean-Francis Pasquier), supported by the
in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 (92), NTN Corpor-                    Kingdom of Spain, represented by Paloma Plaza Garcı́a,
ation and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd. v Council of the European                    Abogado del Estado, of its Community Affairs Legal Depart-
                              Union (1)                                    ment, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxem-
                                                                           bourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel
               (Taxation of costs — Inadmissible)                          Servais — application for annulment of Commission Regu-
                                                                           lation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the registration
                                                                           of geographical indications and designations of origin under
                          (1999/C 188/60)                                  the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council Regulation
                                                                           (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1996 L 148, p. 1) in so far as it
                    (Language of the case: English)                        registered the names Turrón de Jijona and Turrón de Alicante
                                                                           as protected geographical indications — the Court of First
In Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 (92), NTN Corpor-                    Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf (President
ation, established at Osaka, represented by Jürgen Schwarze                of the Chamber), and J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung,
and Malte Sprenger, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address              Registrar, has given an order on 26 March 1999 in which it:
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Penning,
78 Grand-Rue, and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd, established at Osaka,                1. Dismisses the application as inadmissible;
represented by Jacques Buhart, of the Paris Bar, and Charles
Kaplan, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg               2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and those of the
at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias                       Commission, and orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
Hardt, against Council of the European Union (Agent: Stephan
Marquardt), application for taxation of costs made by NTN
Corporation following the judgment of the Court of First                   (1) OJ No C 269 (14.9.1996).
Instance of 2 May 1995 in Joined Cases T-163/94 and
T-165/94 NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko v Council [1995]
ECR II-1381, the Court (Fifth Chamber, Extended Compo-
sition), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcı́a-
Valdecasas, P. Lindh, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; Registrar:
H. Jung, made an order on 17 March 1999, the operative part
of which is as follows:
1) The application by NTH Corporation is dismissed as inadmis-                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      sible.
                                                                                of 22 March 1999
( 1) OJ No C 29 of 2 February 1993.
                                                                           in Case T-105/98 Rainer Dumont du Voitel v Council of
                                                                                the European Union (1)
                                                                           (Council Decision 98/319/EC of 27 April 1998 on the
                                                                           procedures whereby officials and employees of the General
        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Secretariat of the Council may be allowed access to classified
                                                                           information held by the Council — Action for annulment —
                         of 26 March 1999                                                          Inadmissibility)
in Case T-114/96 Biscuiterie-confiserie LOR SA and                                                (1999/C 188/62)
Another v Commission of the European Communities
                           and Another (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Actions for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 —
Registration of geographical indications — ‘Turrón de Jijona’
    and ‘Turrón de Alicante’ — Locus standi – Inadmissible)               Application, in Case T-105/98, Rainer Dumont du Voitel, an
                                                                           official at the Council of the European Union resident at
                          (1999/C 188/61)                                  Vossem-Tervuren, Belgium, represented by Pierre-Paul Van
                                                                           Gehuchten and Jacques Sambon, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
                     (Language of the case: French)                        Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim against the Council of the
                                                                           European Union (Agents: Jean-Paul Jacqué and Diego Canga
In Case T-114/96 Biscuiterie-confiserie LOR SA, whose regis-               Fano), for annulment of Council Decision 98/319/EC of
tered office is at Perpignan (France) and Confiserie du Tech SA,           27 April 1998 relating to the procedures whereby officials and


title: Case C-413/10: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Prato — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Michela Pulignani, Alfonso Picariello, Bianca Cilla, Andrea Moretti, Mauro Bianconi, Patrizio Gori, Emilio Duranti, Concetta Zungri (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Consequences of an infringement of European Union law in the awarding of licences — Award of 16300 additional licences — Principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency — Principle of legal certainty — Protection of holders of earlier licences — National legislation — Mandatory minimum distances between betting outlets — Whether permissible — Cross-border activities analogous to those engaged in under the licence — Prohibition under national legislation — Whether permissible)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/11

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario di Prato — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Michela Pulignani, Alfonso Picariello, Bianca Cilla, Andrea Moretti, Mauro Bianconi, Patrizio Gori, Emilio Duranti, Concetta Zungri
   (Case C-413/10) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Consequences of an infringement of European Union law in the awarding of licences - Award of 16 300 additional licences - Principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency - Principle of legal certainty - Protection of holders of earlier licences - National legislation - Mandatory minimum distances between betting outlets - Whether permissible - Cross-border activities analogous to those engaged in under the licence - Prohibition under national legislation - Whether permissible)
   2012/C 151/19
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario di Prato

      Criminal proceedings against

   Michela Pulignani, Alfonso Picariello, Bianca Cilla, Andrea Moretti, Mauro Bianconi, Patrizio Gori, Emilio Duranti, Concetta Zungri

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Prato — Free movement of persons — Freedom to provide services — Activity of collecting bets — Domestic legislation making the exercise of that activity conditional upon the obtaining of a public security authorisation and permit — Protection afforded to persons obtaining authorisations and permits by means of award procedures that unlawfully excluded other operators from the same sector — Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State which, in breach of European Union law, has excluded a category of operators from the award of licences to engage in a particular economic activity and which seeks to remedy that breach by putting out to tender a significant number of new licences, from protecting the market positions acquired by the existing operators, by providing inter alia that a minimum distance must be observed between the establishments of new licence holders and those of existing operators.

               2.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of penalties for engaging in the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or police authorisation on persons who are linked to an operator which was excluded, in breach of European Union law, from an earlier tendering procedure, even following the new tendering procedure intended to remedy that breach of European Union law, in so far as that tendering procedure and the subsequent award of new licences have not in fact remedied the exclusion of that operator from the earlier tendering procedure.

               3.

               It follows from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principle of equal treatment, the obligation of transparency and the principle of legal certainty that the conditions and detailed rules of a tendering procedure such as that at issue in the case before the referring court and, in particular, the provisions concerning the withdrawal of licences granted under that tendering procedure, such as those laid down in Article 23(2)(a) and (3) of the model contract between the Independent Authority for the Administration of State Monopolies and the successful tenderer for the licence for betting on events other than horse races, must be drawn up in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner, a matter which it is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case T-88/15: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a radiator grille)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/40

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a radiator grille)
   (Case T-88/15) (1)

   (2017/C 293/51)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.