20.2.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 48/31
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Removal from the register of Case T-357/93 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/65)
Ð annul the Commission Decision of 14 October 1998
     relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC
     Treaty (in Case IV/F-3/33.310) in so far as such                                 (Language of the case: English)
     Decision relates to Napier Brown;
                                                                       By order of 7 December 1998 the President of the Fourth
Ð cancel, or reduce the amount of, the fine imposed on                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
     Napier Brown under the Decision;                                  Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                       Case T-357/93: W. J. Wyness and Sons v. Council of the
                                                                       European Union and Commission of the European
Ð order that the Commission pay the costs of the                       Communities.
     proceedings;
                                                                       (1) OJ C 189, 13.7.1993.
Ð order that the Commission reimburse the applicant for
     any expenses incurred in providing security for the
     payment of the fine.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case T-525/93 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/66)
The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's
decision of 14 October 1998 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (1).                                          (Language of the case: English)
The application contests the Commission's finding that the
                                                                       By order of 7 December 1998 the President of the Fourth
applicant has infringed Article 85(1) by participating in
                                                                       Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
an agreement and/or concerted practice the object of
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
which was to restrict competition by the coordination of
                                                                       removal from the register of Case T-525/93: Patrick
the parties' pricing policy on the market for industrial
                                                                       Griffin v. Council of the European Union and Commission
sugar in Great Britain', on the basis that the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities.
has failed to adduce any, or any sufficient, evidence of an
anti-competitive object' which can be imputed to the
applicant, and has failed to show any collusive behaviour              (1) OJ C 328, 4.12.1993.
in the market.
The Commission has also misapplied the law to the facts
and relied upon inconsistent reasoning in coming to its
decision.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case T-554/93 (1)
The applicant also submits that the Commission has                                            (1999/C 48/67)
misused its powers under Article 15 of Regulation No 17,
has misapplied its own Guidelines (2) on the method of
setting fines and is in breach of general principles of                               (Language of the case: English)
Community law, especially of the general principle of
proportionality, in fixing the level of fine imposed on the
applicant. The fine of ECU 1 800 000 is wholly unjustified             By order of 7 December 1998 the President of the Fourth
and excessive in all the circumstances. For this reason the            Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
applicant submits, as an additional ground, that the fine              Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
should be cancelled or, at least, reduced.                             removal from the register of Case T-554/93: Alfred
                                                                       Thomas Edward Saint and Christopher Murray v. Council
(1) See also Cases T-202/98 (Tate & Lyle v. Commission) and            of the European Union and Commission of the European
    T-204/98 (British Sugar v. Commission).                            Communities.
(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 C 9, 14.1.1998, p. 3).                             (1) OJ C 338, 15.12.1993.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Second Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of 28 October 1998, in the case of Fazenda Pública v Câmara Municipal do Porto (Case C-446/98)

text:
6.2.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 33/5
2. If the first part of the first question is answered in the       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Second Chamber
    affirmative, is a Member State in principle obliged to          of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of
    refund to a trader financial charges on the value of            that court of 28 October 1998, in the case of Fazenda
    exported goods which must be regarded as levied in                          PuÂblica v CaÃmara Municipal do Porto
    breach of Community law, on the basis that it is                                        (Case C-446/98)
    established that the person who was required to pay
    the charges at issue in fact passed them on to other                                     (1999/C 33/08)
    persons, namely the purchasers of the goods, and it
    does not follow, nor does the trader claim, that that
    charge caused an increase in the price of the products          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    and a reduction in the volume of his sales with the             European Communities by a judgment of the Second
    result that he suffered subsequent loss?                        Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
                                                                    (Supreme Administrative Court) of 28 October 1998,
                                                                    which was received at the Court Registry on 7 December
                                                                    1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Fazenda
                                                                    PuÂblica v CaÃmara Municipal do Porto, on the following
                                                                    questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                   (a) Does the expression activities or transactions in
Circondariale di Milano by order of that court of                         which they engage as public authorities' used in the
6 November 1998 in the case of Unilever Italia SpA                        first subparagraph of Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT
                  against Central Food SpA                                Directive (1) cover the renting out of areas for the
                                                                          parking of vehicles (both on-street and off-street
                       (Case C-443/98)                                    parking) by the public authorities (a municipality)?
                        (1999/C 33/07)
                                                                    (b) May the significant distortions of competition
                                                                          referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 4(5)
                                                                          of the Sixth VAT Directive be defined case by case by
                                                                          the Minister of Finance of a Member State?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Pretura
Circondariale di Milano (District Magistrate's Court,               (c)   If the national provision which empowers the
Milan) of 6 November 1998, which was received at the                      Minister of Finance to define, case by case,
Court Registry on 7 December 1998, for a preliminary                      significant     distortions     of    competition      is
ruling in the case of Unilever Italia SpA against Central                 unconstitutional, in that it infringes the principle that
Food SpA on the following question:                                       taxation must have a legislative basis, but conforms
                                                                          with Community law (with the Sixth Directive), must
                                                                          the national court comply with its Constitution or
                                                                          must it, first and foremost, comply with Community
May a national provision which has been promulgated                      law by virtue of the principle of the primacy of that
and entered into force in the Member State (Law No 313                    law over constitutions?
of 3 August 1998) be disapplied by a national court called
upon to issue an order for payment in relation to the
supply of extra virgin olive oil labelled in a manner not in        (d) Will the public authorities always be regarded as
accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned                      taxable persons provided that the activities in which
national provision, considering that, following the                       they engage are not insignificant, or are they taxable
notification and the subsequent examination of a draft                    persons only as regards the activities or transactions
national Law concerning the labelling of extra virgin olive               listed in Annex D, to which the third subparagraph
oil, virgin olive oil and olive oil, the European                         of Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT Directive refers?
Commission, on the basis of Article 9(3) of Council
Directive 83/189/EEC (1) laying down a procedure for the
provision of information in the field of technical standards        (e)   May a national law authorise the Minister of Finance
and regulations, formally requested the notifying State not               to define, case by case, what activities are being
to legislate, prescribing a period (until 14 September                    engaged in on a basis that is not significant?
1999) in respect of the marketing rules for olive oil,
pending the adoption of a Community regulation on the
matter at issue?'                                                   (f)   For the purposes of the last subparagraph of
                                                                          Article 4(5) of the Sixth VAT Directive, may a
                                                                          Member State regard on activity of renting out areas
(1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.                                            intended for the parking of vehicles, when it is
                                                                          carried on by a municipality, as an activity in which
                                                                          the municipality engages as a public authority, having
                                                                          regard to the provisions of Article 13B(b)(2) of the
                                                                          Sixth VAT Directive?
 ---pagebreak--- C 33/6                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  6.2.1999
(g) Since neither of the parties to the main proceedings             geographical area under para. 5(c) of such notification the
      has raised any question of interpretation or                   Landkreise (rural districts) of Gera, Zeitz, Geithain,
      application of the Sixth VAT Directive, may the                Grimma, Wurzen, Borna and the City of Gera (or, to use
      national court, of its own motion, interpret and apply         the nomenclature arising from the redrawing of
      the provisions of that directive when giving its final         boundaries and renaming of districts pursuant to
      decision?                                                      administrative reforms in the relevant Bundesländer of
                                                                     Thüringen, Sachsen and Sachsen-Anhalt, in so far as it
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the         included the Landkreise Greiz and Muldentalkreis, parts
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to       of the Kreise Leipziger Land and Burgenlandkreis and the
    turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:               City of Gera).
    uniform basis of assessment Ð OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The appellants plead infringement of the fourth paragraph
                                                                     of Article 173 of the EC Treaty. In their submission, the
                                                                     contested order wrongly denied that they were
Appeal brought on 7 December 1998 by Molkerei                        individually concerned by the regulation. It ignored the
Groûbraunshain GmbH and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH                     fact that, in the particular circumstances, the contested
against the order delivered on 15 September 1998 by                  regulation had the effect of a decision; that the plaintiffs'
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance                    position was not improved but worsened thereby; that
of the European Communities in Case T-109/97                         erroneous choice of the simplified registration procedure
between Molkerei Groûbraunshain GmbH and Bene                        caused guaranteed hearing rights to be truncated, which
Nahrungsmittel GmbH, supported by Freistaat Thüringen,               would otherwise have conferred standing to bring an
and the Commission of the European Communities,                      action; that the plaintiffs do not have appropriate
supported by Molkerei und Weichkäserei K.-H.                         protection by bringing national legal proceedings; and that
                      Zimmermann GmbH                                in any event no determination could be made as to the
                       (Case C-447/98 P)                             admissibility of the claim without any consideration of its
                         (1999/C 33/09)                              merits.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 378, 5.12.1998, p. 17.
An appeal against the order issued on 15 September 1998
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-109/97 (1)
between Molkerei Groûbraunshain GmbH and Bene
Nahrungsmittel GmbH, supported by Freistaat Thüringen,
and the Commission of the European Communities,                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
supported by Molkerei und Weichkäserei K.-H.                         Police, Belley, by judgment of that court of 24 November
Zimmermann GmbH, was brought before the Court of                     1998 in the case of MinisteÁre Public v Jean-Pierre
Justice of the European Communities on 7 December                                               Guimont
1998 by Molkerei Groûbraunshain GmbH and Bene                                              (Case C-448/98)
Nahrungsmittel        GmbH,      represented     by    Michael
Loschelder and Thilo Klingbeil, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne,                                     (1999/C 33/10)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
The appellants claim that the Court should:                          Police (Local Criminal Court), Belley, France, of
                                                                     24 November 1998, which was received at the Court
set aside the order of the Court of First Instance and allow         Registry on 9 December 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
the appellants' original claim for the annulment of                  the case of MinisteÁre Public v Jean-Pierre Guimont on the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 123/97 of 23 January                   following question:
1997 supplementing the Annex to Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1107/96 on the registration of geographical                  On a proper construction of Articles 3(a) and 30 et seq. of
indications and designations of origin under the procedure           the Treaty establishing the European Community, as
laid down in Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92               amended, must the French rules enacted by Decree
in so far as, in respect of the product Altenburger                 No 88-1206 of 30 December 1988, which prohibit the
Ziegenkäse (PDO)' referred to in Part A of the Annex to              manufacture and marketing in France of a cheese without
the regulation, the notification by the Federal Republic of          rind under the designation Emmental', be regarded as
Germany of 26 January 1994, as supplemented on                       constituting a quantitative restriction or a measure having
7 August 1996, included in the designation of the relevant           equivalent effect on intra-Community trade?


title: Case C-291/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Trieste, First Civil Chamber, by order of 24 May 1999 in the case of Crossbow Srl v Ministero delle Finanze

text:
30.10.1999               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 314/3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                       ‘Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with
Trieste, First Civil Chamber, by order of 24 May 1999 in                     Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at
     the case of Crossbow Srl v Ministero delle Finanze                      the rate of 0.75 % per annum pursuant to Decree-Law
                                                                             No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the net assets
                                                                             consisting solely of a company’s capital disclosed annually by
                           (Case C-291/99)                                   the balance sheet which has already borne the initial tax on
                                                                             contributions of 1 %?’
                           (1999/C 314/04)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 24 May 1999 from the
                                                                             (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
Tribunale di Trieste (District Court, Trieste), First Civil Chamb-
er, which was received at the Court Registry on 3 August
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Crossbow Srl and Ministero delle Finanze (Ministry of Finance),
on the following questions:
1. Has Article 234 of the Treaty establishing the EEC (1)
      preserved the extraterritorial legal status of the Port of
      Trieste resulting from Articles 1 to 20 of Annex VIII to the
      1947 Peace Treaty and the subsequent Memorandum of
      Understanding of 1954?
2. Does the question whether the free zones in the Port of                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko
      Trieste do or do not form part of the customs territory of             Protodikio (Administrative Court of First Instance)
      the Community fall to be decided in the light of Regulation            (23rd Three-Member Chamber), Athens, by a decision of
      (EEC) No 2913/92 (2) and the earlier Regulation                        that court of 26 July 1999 in the case of Athinaiki
      No 1496/68 (3)?                                                                Zithopiia (Athens Breweries) AF v Greek State
3. Does the territorial status of those zones not fall rather to
      be determined in the light of Council Directi-                                                   (Case C-294/99)
      ve 69/75/EEC (4) and the later Regulation No 2454/93 (5)?
                                                                                (1999/C 314/06)
( 1) Article 234 of the EC Treaty: now, after amendment, Article 307
     EC.
( 2) Council Regulation, OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 3) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 436.                          European Communities by a decision of the Administrative
( 4) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (I), p. 86.                            Court of First Instance (23rd Three-Member Chamber), Athens,
( 5) Commission Regulation of 2.7.1993, OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993,              of 26 July 1999, received at the Court Registry on 5 August
     p. 1.                                                                   1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Athinaiki
                                                                             Zithopiia (Athens Breweries) AE v Greek State on the following
                                                                             question:
                                                                             Does the term ‘withholding tax’ within the meaning of
                                                                             Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July
                                                                             1990 cover the case provided for in national legislation where,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                        on distribution of profits by a subsidiary public limited
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 by                         company or equivalent to its parent company, in determining
order of that court of 10 June 1999 in the case of Energy                    the taxable profits of the subsidiary, account is to be taken of
Service Srl against Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia                 total net profits, including income subject to special tax
                               di Trento                                     entailing extinction of the tax debt and also non-taxable
                                                                             income, whereas those two categories of income would not be
                                                                             taxable on the basis of the national legislation if they remained
                           (Case C-293/99)                                   with the subsidiary and were not distributed to the parent
                                                                             company?
                           (1999/C 314/05)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-                    (1) OJ L 225 of 20.8.1990, p. 6.
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First
Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 10 June 1999, received at
the Court Registry on 5 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Energy Service Srl v Direzione delle Entrate per
la Provincia di Trento on the following question:


title: Case C-282/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Concepción Salgado González v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (Article 48 TFEU — Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and (EC) No 883/2004 — Old-age and survivor’s insurance — Special provisions for the application of national legislation relating to old-age pensions — Calculation of benefits)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/11

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 21 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Spain) — Concepción Salgado González v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)
   (Case C-282/11) (1)

   (Article 48 TFEU - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and (EC) No 883/2004 - Old-age and survivor’s insurance - Special provisions for the application of national legislation relating to old-age pensions - Calculation of benefits)
   2013/C 114/14
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Concepción Salgado González

      Defendants: Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS)

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia — Interpretation of Article 48 TFEU, of Article 3 of and of Heading D (now letter g), Paragraph 4 of Annex VI to Council Regulation No 1408/71/EEC of 14 June on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and their families moving within the European Union (OJ English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) and of Article 87(5) of and of paragraph 2(a) of Annex XI to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1) — Insurance relating to old age and death — Special provisions for the application of national legislation relating to old age insurance — Calculation of benefits — National legislation determining the benefit on the basis of an average contribution basis during a reference period of 15 years.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 48 TFEU, Articles 3, 46(2)(a) and 47(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, and as amended by Regulation (EC) No 629/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2006, and Heading H, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to that regulation, must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the theoretical amount of the retirement pension of a self-employed worker, migrant or non-migrant, is invariably calculated on contribution bases paid by that worker over a fixed reference period preceding the payment of his last contribution in that Member State, to which a fixed divisor is applied, when it is impossible for either the duration of that period or the divisor to be adapted so as to take account of the fact that the worker concerned has exercised his right to freedom of movement.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: Case T-485/10: Action brought on 13 October 2010 — MIP Metro v OHIM — J.C. Ribeiro SGPS (MISS B)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/51

         Action brought on 13 October 2010 — MIP Metro v OHIM — J.C. Ribeiro SGPS (MISS B)
   (Case T-485/10)
   ()
   2010/C 346/100
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: MIP METRO Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: J.C. Ribeiro SGPS S.A. (Sta Maria de Feira, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the action admissible, together with the annexes thereto, against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 August 2010 in Case R 1526/2009-1;

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the opposition to the trade mark application for goods in Classes 14 and 25, since it is incompatible with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: J.C. Ribeiro SGPS S.A.

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark 'MISS B' for goods in Classes 14, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German and international word mark ‘miss H.’ for goods in Classes 6, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 26, and the German figurative mark containing the word element ‘Miss H.’ for goods in Classes 3, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 24, 25 and 26.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal granted.

      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is a likelihood of confusion between the two opposing marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 3 October 1997 in Case T-184/96: Eric Banda v. Commission of the European Communities (Case not proceeding to judgment - Inadmissibility)

text:
22 . 11 . 97          EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 357/27
thereof to the peoples of Georgia and Armenia and                   3 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
for annulment of the Commission's refusal to grant
compensation — the Court of First Instance (Third                   (') OJ C 54, 22 . 2 . 1997.
Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P.
Briet and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 18 July 1997, the operative part of which is as
follows :
1 . The application is dismissed as clearly inadmissibile.               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 September 1997
2. The applicant shall bear the costs.                              in Case T-26/97: Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (')
H OJ C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 .                                         (Action for annulment — Retroactive repeal of the
                                                                            contested measure — No need to adjudicate)
                                                                                ( 97/C 357/52 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                    In Case T-26/97, Antillean Rice Mills NV, established
                      of 3 October 1997                             in Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, represented by W.
                                                                    Knibbeler, of the Amsterdam Bar, and K. J. Defares, of the
in Case T-184/96 : Eric Banda v. Commission of the
                                                                    Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                   European Communities (')                         at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against
     (Case not proceeding to judgment — Inadmissibility)            Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: T. van
                                                                    Rijn ) — application for annulment of Commission
                         ( 97/C 357/51 )                            Regulation ( EC ) No 21 /97 of 8 January 1997 introducing
                                                                    safeguard measures in respect of imports of rice
                 (Language of the case: French)                     originating in the overseas countries and territories ( OJ
                                                                    L 5, 9 . 1 . 1997, p. 24 ) — the Court of First Instance
                                                                    ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,P.
In Case T-184/96: Eric Banda, a member of the local staff           Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
of the Commission of the European Communities,                      an order on 17 September 1997, the operative part of
represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with            which is as follows :
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, v. Commission of the                 1 . There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
European Communities (Agents: Florence Clotuche and
Christine Berardis-Kayser) — application, primarily, for
annulment of the Commission's decision by which it                  2 . The parties shall each bear their own costs, including
decided to invalidate the regional elections held amongst                those relating to the application for interim measures.
the local staff serving within Geographical Region No 11
 between 5 and 20 December 1994 and to reorganize the               (') OJ C 108 , 5 . 4 . 1997.
same and, in the alternative, for annulment of the
 Commission rules of 8 March 1990 entitled 'Transitional
Arrangements for the Representation of Staff Serving
 Outside the Community' and annulment of the regional
elections held amongst the local staff serving in
 Geographical Region No 11 between 4 and 15 November                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 1996 — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber),                                      of 29 September 1997
composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, and C. P. Briet
 and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an             in Case T-83/97: Société Anonyme de Traverses en Béton
 order on 3 October 1997, the operative part of which is                   Armé ( Sateba) v. Commission of the European
 as follows :                                                                                Communities (M
                                                                     (Public procurement — Complaint — Proceedings for a
 1 . There is no need to give a decision on the application          declaration of failure to fulfil obligations — Decision not
      made by the applicant, as a candidate therein, for             to proceed — Application for annulment —
      annulment of the Commission 's decision invalidating                                      Inadmissibility)
      the elections held between 5 and 20 December 1994                                           ( 97/C 357/53 )
      amongst the local staff serving in Geographical Region
      No 1 1 and ordering the same to be reorganized.                                 (Language of the case: French)
 2 . The remainder of the application is dismissed as                In Case T-83/97: Société Anonyme de Traverses en Béton
      inadmissible.                                                  Armé ( Sateba ), established in Paris, represented by Jacques


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2000 in Case C-358/98: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Provision of cleansing, disinfection, disinfestation, rodent-control and sanitation services — Undertakings established in other Member States — Obligation to register)

text:
C 135/2                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           13.5.2000
1. Declares that by adopting, within the framework of the Law of                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
    10 April 1990 on security firms, security systems firms and
    internal security services, provisions which
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
    (a) make the operation of a business falling within that Law                                        of 9 March 2000
         subject to the obtaining of prior authorisation which depends
         on a certain number of conditions, namely that:
                                                                             in Case C-358/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
         — a security firm must have a place of business in Belgium;
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                             Provision of cleansing, disinfection, disinfestation,
         — persons who                                                       rodent-control and sanitation services — Undertakings
                                                                             established in other Member States — Obligation to register)
             — have charge of the actual management of a security
                  firm or internal security service, or who                                             (2000/C 135/02)
             — work in or on behalf of such an undertaking or are
                  employed for the purposes of its activities, with the                           (Language of the case: Italian)
                  exception of internal staff working in administration
                  or logistics,
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
             must have their permanent residence or, failing that,                               in the European Court Reports)
             their habitual residence in Belgium;
                                                                             In Case C-358/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agents: E. Traversa and M. Patakia) v Italian Republic (Agent:
         — an undertaking established in another Member State                Professor U. Leanza, assisted by O. Fiumara) — application for
             must obtain authorisation, for the purpose of which no          a declaration that, by making the provision of cleansing,
             account is taken of the evidence and guarantees already         disinfection, disinfestation, rodent-control and sanitation ser-
             presented by it for the pursuit of its activity in the          vices by operators established in other Member States subject
             Member State of establishment; and                              to registration in the registers referred to in Article 1 of Italian
                                                                             Law No 82 of 25 January 1994, in accordance with Articles 1
                                                                             and 6 of that Law, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
    (b) require every person wishing to exercise a security activity or      obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
         provide an internal security service in Belgium to be issued        amendment, Article 49 EC) — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
         with an identification card in accordance with that Law,            composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) President of the
                                                                             Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger,
                                                                             Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                             on 9 March 2000, in which it:
         the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obli-
         gations under Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty
         (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and                    1. Declares that, by making the provision of cleansing, disinfection,
         49 EC);                                                                 disinfestation, rodent-control and sanitation services by operators
                                                                                established in other Member States subject to registration in the
                                                                                registers referred to in Article 1 of Italian Law No 82 of
                                                                                25 January 1994, in accordance with Articles 1 and 6 of that
2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                               Law, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                                Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
                                                                                EC);
                                                                             2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2000 in Case T-72/99: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the European Communities (OCTs — Project financed by the EDF — Action for damages — Legitimate expectations — Commission's duty to exercise control)

text:
23.9.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 273/11
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               2.    Reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by
                                                                               Article 3 of the contested decision to Euro 90 000 000;
                                                                         3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                          of 6 July 2000
                                                                         4.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay 90 % of
                                                                               the costs incurred by the Commission;
in Case T-62/98: Volkswagen AG v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                              5.    Orders the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 184 of 13.6.98.
(Competition — Distribution of motor vehicles — Partition-
ing of the market — Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 81 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 — Disclos-
ure to the press — Business secrets — Good administration
           — Fines — Gravity of the infringement)
                         (2000/C 273/17)
                                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 27 June 2000
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         in Case T-72/99: Karl L. Meyer v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
In Case T-62/98: Volkswagen AG, established in Wolfsburg
(Germany), represented by R. Bechtold, Stuttgart, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch              (OCTs — Project financed by the EDF — Action for damages
and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe v Commission of the European                   — Legitimate expectations — Commission’s duty to exercise
Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner and H.J. Freund) — appli-                                               control)
cation for annulment of Commission Decision 98/273/EC of
28 January 1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
the EC Treaty (Case IV/35.733 — VW) (OJ 1998 L 124, p. 60)                                         (2000/C 273/18)
or, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the
applicant in that decision — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili and
P. Mengozzi, Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for the Registrar,                            (Language of the case: French)
has given a judgment on 6 July 2000, in which it:
                                                                         In Case T-72/99: Karl L. Meyer, residing at Uturoa (island of
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 98/273/EC of 28 January                 Raiatea, French Polynesia), represented by J.-D. des Arcis, of
      1998 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC           the Papeete Bar, and C.A. Kupferberg, of the Paris Bar, with an
      Treaty (Case IV/35.733 — VW) in so far as it finds that:           address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                         Mr H. Pakowski, Ambassador of the Federal Republic of
                                                                         Germany, 20-22 Avenue Emile Reuter, v Commission of the
                                                                         European Communities (agent: X. Lewis) — application for
      (a)  a split margin system and termination of certain dealer-      compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appli-
           ship contracts by way of penalty were measures adopted        cant as a result of the European Development Fund having
           in order to hinder re-exports of Volkswagen and Audi          refrained from paying a subsidy which it had undertaken to
           vehicles from Italy by final consumers and authorised         grant in the context of a programme concerning the planting
           dealers in those makes in other Member States;                of trees and tropical fruit plants on the island of Raiatea —
                                                                         the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
                                                                         K. Lenaerts, President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
      (b) the infringement had not completely ceased between             G. Herzig, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
           1 October 1996 and the adoption of the decision;              ment on 27 June 2000, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 273/12                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        23.9.2000
1.    Dismisses the action;                                              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                of 28 June 2000
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                in Case T-191/98 R II, Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         (Competition — Payment of fine — Bank guarantee —
                                                                                Urgency — Balance of interests)
                                                                                (2000/C 273/20)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           of 6 July 2000                                In Case T-191/98 R II: Cho Yang Shipping Co. Ltd, established
                                                                         in Seoul, South Korea, represented by N. Bromfield and
in Case T-139/99: Alsace International Car Services (AICS)               C. Thomas, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                    v European Parliament (1)                            Luxembourg at the chambers of De Bandt, Van Hecke, Lagae
                                                                         and Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities (Agent: R. Lyal) — Application for suspension
(Public services contract — Passenger transport by chauf-                of the operation of Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of
feur-driven vehicles — Invitation to tender — Compliance                 16 September 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
with national law — Principles of sound administration and               Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 —
of the duty to cooperate in good faith — Rejection of a                  Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95, p. 1) in
                               tender)                                   so far as, in Article 8, it imposes a fine of EUR 13 750 000 on
                                                                         the applicant, the President of the Court of First Instance has
                                                                         given an order on 28 June 2000, in which:
                          (2000/C 273/19)
                                                                         1.   The application for interim relief is dismissed.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        2.   The applicant is given 15 days in which to lodge at the Registry
                                                                              a request for confidential treatment.
In Case T-139/99: Alsace International Car Services (AICS),              3.   Costs are reserved.
established in Strasbourg (France), represented by C. Imbach
and A. Dissler, of the Strasbourg Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue
Béatrix de Bourbon, v European Parliament (agents: P. Runge
Nielsen and O. Caisou-Rousseau) — application, first, for
annulment of the Parliament’s decision not to accept the
tender submitted by the applicant in the context of invitation
                                                                         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
to tender No 99/S 18-8765/FR relating to a contract for
                                                                                INSTANCE
passenger transport by chauffeur-driven vehicles during the
Parliamentary sessions in Strasbourg and, second, for compen-
sation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a                                     of 28 June 2000
result of that decision — the Court of First Instance (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas, President, and             in Case T-74/00 R: Artegodan GmbH v Commission of
P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for                             the European Communities
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 July 2000, in which
it:                                                                      (Procedure for interim relief — Withdrawal of authorisation
                                                                         for medicinal products for human use which contain ‘amfe-
1.    Dismisses the action;                                              pramon’ — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency — Balancing
                                                                                of interests)
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay the
      Parliament’s costs.                                                                          (2000/C 273/21)
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.                                                                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         In Case T-74/00 R: Artegodan GmbH, established in Lüchow,
                                                                         Germany, represented by U. Doepner, Rechtsanwalt, Düssel-


C 84/54               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                  6.4.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-48/01 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-119/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/95)                                                    (2002/C 84/98)
By order of 23 October 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                  By order of 22 October 2001 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-48/01: Commission of the
                                                                  from the register of Case C-119/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Ireland.
                                                                  European Communities v Finland.
(1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.2001.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-51/01 and
                           C-52/01 (1)
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-244/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/96)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/99)
By order of 6 November 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal           By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Joined Cases C-51/01 and C-52/01:            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v Beta Television          from the register of Case C-244/01: Commission of the
SpA (Videomusic/TMC2) and Internazionale SpA.                     European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                        (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
       Removal from the register of Case C-118/01 (1)
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-336/01 (1)
                        (2002/C 84/97)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/100)
By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                  By order of 19 November 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-118/01: Commission of the
                                                                  Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v French Republic.
                                                                  from the register of Case C-336/01: Commission of the
                                                                  European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Case T-747/14: Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Merck v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (HEALTHPRESSO) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/43

         Order of the General Court of 8 March 2017 — Merck v EUIPO — Société des produits Nestlé (HEALTHPRESSO)
   (Case T-747/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 144/58)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: M. Best, U. Pfleghar and S. Schäffner, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Société des produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Jaeger-Lenz, A. Lambrecht and S. Cobet-Nüse, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 August 2014 (Case R 1880/2013-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Société des Produits Nestlé SA and Merck KGaA.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               Merck KGaA and Société des Produits Nestlé SA are ordered to bear their own costs and to, each, bear half of the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.


title: Case C-280/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 13 June 2007 — Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-280/07)
   (2007/C 211/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the limitation period prescribed in the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 (1) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests be applied even if an irregularity was committed or ceased before Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 entered into force?

               2.

               Is the limitation period prescribed in that provision applicable in general to administrative measures such as the recovery of export refunds granted as a result of irregularities?

         If the answers to those questions are in the affirmative:

               3.

               May a longer period pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 be applied by a Member State even if such a longer period was already provided for in the law of the Member State before the abovementioned regulation was adopted? May such a longer period be applied even if it was not prescribed in a specific provision for the recovery of export refunds or for administrative measures in general, but resulted from a general rule of the Member State concerned covering all limitation cases not specifically regulated (‘catch-all’ provision)?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.


title: Case C-265/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Dinan, by judgment of that court of 28 June 2001, in the case of Ministère Public — partie civile: Comité Région pêches maritimes against Annie Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc Kermarrec

text:
C 245/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.9.2001
—    Infringement of the principle of equal treatment:                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
     The Court of First Instance failed to draw all the logical         (a)   Declare that,
     consequences from the selection board’s decision to
     delete certain questions and to take no account of the                   —     by failing to adopt all the provisions necessary so
     answers given to them.                                                         that the quality of bathing water conformed to the
                                                                                values limits set down in Article 3 of the directive;
                                                                              —     by failing to take samples at the minimum frequency
                                                                                laid down in the annex to the directive;
Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Tribunal de                        —     by failing to identify all the inshore bathing areas in
Grande Instance de Dinan, by judgment of that court of                              Portugal,
28 June 2001, in the case of Ministère Public — partie
civile: Comité Région pêches maritimes against Annie
       Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc Kermarrec                             the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Directive 76/160/EEC (1) in particular as provided
                                                                              for in Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 3, the
                       (Case C-265/01)                                        annex to the directive and with Article 1(2) and those
                                                                              provided for in Article 6(1) and (2);
                       (2001/C 245/25)
                                                                        (b) Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communites by judgment of the Tribunal de Grande
Instance de Dinan of 28 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 5 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Ministère Public — partie civile: Comite Region pêches               Pleas in law and main arguments
maritimes against Annie Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc
Kermarrec on the following questions:
                                                                        Although a derogation was granted under Article 395 of and
—    Can scallops caught from vessels registered in France (at          Point II-3 of Annex XXXVI to the Act of Accession of Spain
     Saint-Brieuc and Saint-Malo) in the waters of Jersey (the          and Portugal to the European Economic Community until
     Minkies) under licence issued by the Jersey authorities            31 December 1992, the level of non-conformity with the
     authorising fishing by diving be regarded as imported              mandatory values set down in the directive was, for the 2000
     products, in spite of the French legislation which applies         bathing season, 7.8 % for coastal bathing areas and 31 % for
     to fish catches the law of the flag of the fishing vessel?         inland bathing areas, which was even a decrease in conformity
                                                                        by comparison with the 1999 season.
—    Is the validity of the Order of 19 March 1980, which
     prohibits the unloading of scallops during their close
     season, affected by the provisions of the Treaty of
                                                                        Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities have still not identified
     Maastricht, which prohibit measures having an effect
                                                                        all the inland bathing areas. There is a discrepancy between
     equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports?
                                                                        the number of inland bathing areas identified (26) and the
                                                                        number of ‘riverside beaches’, as described by the Portuguese
                                                                        authorities, eligible for Community funds (91).
                                                                        Although there has been 100 % sampling in Portugal in both
Action brought on 10 July 2001 by the Commission                        coastal bathing areas and inshore bathing areas, that percentage
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                      is only in respect of the bathing areas which have been
                           Republic                                     identified. Thus, by failing to comply with the minimum
                                                                        frequency of sampling operations because an insufficient
                                                                        number of inshore bathing areas have been identified, the
                       (Case C-272/01)                                  Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with its obligations
                                                                        under Article 6(1) and (2) of the directive.
                       (2001/C 245/26)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before            (1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July                 the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1).
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Teresa Figueira and Gregorio Valero Jordana,
acting as Agents.


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 December 2016 in Case E-1/16 — Synnøve Finden AS v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Product coverage of the EEA Agreement — Dairy products — State aid — State resources — Effect on trade and distortion of competition — Freedom of establishment)

text:
               27.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/4

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 15 December 2016
   in Case E-1/16
   Synnøve Finden AS v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food
   (Product coverage of the EEA Agreement — Dairy products — State aid — State resources — Effect on trade and distortion of competition — Freedom of establishment)
   (2017/C 133/04)
   In Case E-1/16, Synnøve Finden AS v the Norwegian Government, represented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) concerning the interpretation of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Articles 31 and 61 thereof, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President and Judge-Rapporteur, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 15 December 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 61 EEA must be interpreted as meaning that a mechanism, provided for by national regulation, according to which an undertaking is granted NOK 0,50 per litre for a quantity limited up to 100 million litres for the distribution of certain products, some of which fall within the scope of the EEA Agreement, constitutes a State aid measure, provided that the referring court, having regard to all the facts before it and the guidance provided by the Court, finds that there is an intervention by the State or through State resources, that the intervention is liable to affect trade between EEA States, that it confers a selective advantage on the beneficiary and that it distorts or threatens to distort competition. Such a finding by the referring court would render the scheme subject to the notification requirement laid down in Article 1(3) of Part I of Protocol 3 to the Agreement between the EFTA States on a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice.

               2.

               In the event that a State aid scheme is inseparably linked to certain products not exclusively outside the scope of the EEA Agreement, the measure as a whole must be notified to the EFTA Surveillance Authority.

               3.

               A national court will not have cause to assess a State aid scheme in light of the freedom of establishment in Article 31 EEA, unless it can be assessed separately in law from the State aid measure.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) 7 May 2002 in Case C-364/00: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 97/70/EC — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

text:
C 144/8                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
      which the insured person received a disability pension under a        concentrated butter intended for the manufacture of pastry
      national accident insurance scheme, without providing for the         products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs and, second, partial
      possibility of a prolongation of that period where a benefit of       annulment of Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July
      such a kind was paid under the legislation of another Member          2000 excluding from Community financing certain expendi-
      State.                                                                ture incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
                                                                            Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
4.    Article 9a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and                   Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49) in so far as it excludes
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, a provision which is                 from Community financing expenditure in the amount of
      incompatible with Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty in           EUR 160 225 645 and EUR 3 188 322 respectively incurred
      so far as it excludes the possibility of taking into account, for     by the Kingdom of Belgium in the context of aid for the sale at
      the purposes of the prolongation of the reference period under        a reduced price of butter and the grant of aid for concentrated
      the legislation of a Member State, the periods during which           butter intended for the manufacture of pastry products, ice-
      industrial accident benefits were paid under the legislation of       cream and other foodstuffs, the Court (Sixth Chamber),
      another Member State, is invalid.                                     composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
                                                                            mann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and J. N. Cunha Rodrigues
                                                                            (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hew-
                                                                            lett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.                                                  18 April 2002, in which it:
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                            2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                            18 April 2002
in Case C-332/00: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Action for annulment — Clearance of EAGGF accounts —                                               (Fourth Chamber)
Non-recognition of expenditure — Financial years 1995 to
                                1997)
                                                                                7 May 2002
                           (2002/C 144/11)
                                                                            in Case C-364/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Directive 97/70/EC — Failure to implement within the
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                   prescribed period)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/12)
In Case C-332/00, Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx) v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Bordes                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
and M. Niejahr): Application for, first, annulment of Com-
mission Decision 2000/448/EC of 5 July 2000 amending
Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of the accounts                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure                                   in the European Court Reports)
for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2000 L 180,
p. 46) in so far as it excludes from Community financing
expenditure in the amount of BEF 50 763 827 incurred by the                 In Case C-364/00, Commission of the European Communities
Kingdom of Belgium in the context of aid for the sale at a                  (Agent: T. van Rijn) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:
reduced price of butter and the grant of aid for butter and                 J. van Bakel): Application for a declaration that, by failing to
 ---pagebreak--- 15.6.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 144/9
adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and             declaration that, by not ensuring that by 31 December 1998
administrative measures necessary to implement the provisions              at the latest the discharges of urban waste water of the city of
of Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December 1997 setting                  Milan, located within a catchment area draining into areas of
up a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels of 24 metres             the delta of the River Po and the north-west coast of the
in length and over (OJ 1998 L 34, p. 1), the Kingdom of the                Adriatic Sea defined by Decree-Law No 152 of the Italian
Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC              Republic of 11 May 1999, enacting provisions on the preven-
Treaty, the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr               tion of water pollution and implementing Directive 91/271/
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and                EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment and Directive
A. La Pergola, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,               91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 May 2002, in which it:                of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural
                                                                           sources (GURI of 29 May 1999, ord. suppl) as sensitive, within
                                                                           the meaning of Article 5 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,    21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ
      the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to       1991 L 135, p. 40), were subjected to more stringent
      comply with Council Directive 97/70/EC of 11 December                treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment
      1997 setting up a harmonised safety regime for fishing vessels       prescribed by Article 4 of that directive, the Italian Republic
      of 24 metres in length and over, the Kingdom of the                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of the
      Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under that          aforementioned directive, as specified in Article 5(5), the
      directive.                                                           Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),
                                                                           President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann,
                                                                           R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate
2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.              General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 April
                                                                           2002, in which it:
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                           1.   Declares that, by not ensuring that, by 31 December 1998 at
                                                                                the latest, the discharges of urban waste water of the city of
                                                                                Milan, within a relevant catchment area draining into the areas
                                                                                of the delta of the River Po and the north-west coast of the
                                                                                Adriatic Sea defined by Decree-Law No 152 of the Italian
                                                                                Republic of 11 May 1999, enacting provisions on the
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          prevention of water pollution and implementing Directive
                                                                                91/271/EEC concerning urban waste-water treatment and
                                                                                Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                       protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
                                                                                agricultural sources as sensitive, within the meaning of Article 5
                           25 April 2002                                        of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning
                                                                                urban waste-water treatment, were subjected to more stringent
                                                                                treatment than secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment
in Case C-396/00: Commission of the European Communi-                           prescribed by Article 4 of that directive, the Italian Republic
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of that
                                                                                same directive;
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 91/271/EEC — Urban waste-water treatment —
Urban waste-water of the city of Milan — Discharge in a
           sensitive area — Relevant catchment area)                       2.   Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                          (2002/C 144/13)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-396/00, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Valero Jordana and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by M. Fiorilli); Application for a


title: Case T-186/06: Action brought on 17 July 2006 — Solvay v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/38

         Action brought on 17 July 2006 — Solvay v Commission
   (Case T-186/06)
   (2006/C 212/67)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Solvay S.A. (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O.W. Brouwer, D. Mes, lawyers, M. O'Regan and A. Villette, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, in full or in part, Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the European Commission's Decision of 3 May 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/F/38.620 — Hydrogen peroxide and perborate) insofar as it relates to the applicant, in particular insofar as it finds that the applicant infringed Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (a) between 31 January 1994 and August 1997 and (b) between 18 May and 31 December 2000;

               —

               annul or substantially reduce the fines imposed on the applicant and on Solvay Solexis SpA pursuant to the decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including costs incurred by the applicant associated with payment in whole or 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
   By the contested decision the Commission found that the applicant had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by participating in a hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborate cartel, which consisted mainly of exchanges between competitors of information on prices and sales volumes, agreements on prices, agreements on reduction of production capacity in the EEA and monitoring of the anti-competitive arrangements.
   The applicant contends that the Commission was entitled to find that Solvay had infringed Article 81 EC between August 1997 and 18 May 2000, but that the Commission committed infringements of law and manifest errors of assessment in the application of Article 81 EC finding that Solvay committed an infringement, on the one hand, between 31 January 1994 and August 1997 and, on the other, between 18 May and 31 December 2000. These infringements and manifest errors of assessment relate in particular to:

               a)

               the misapplication of the concepts of ‘agreement’, ‘concerted practice’ and ‘single and continuous infringement’;

               b)

               failing to prove to the requisite standard the applicant's participation in a cartel other than in the periods admitted by the applicant;

               c)

               presuming continuing anti-competitive effects after 18 May 2000; and

               d)

               failing to analyse properly the evidence in its file in relation to the above periods.

         The applicant further submits that the Commission, when calculating the fine, has made several infringements of law and manifest errors of assessment in applying its 2002 Leniency Notice (1) and Regulation No 1/2003 (2), including in relation to:

               a)

               the timing of applications for a reduction of fines and/or the provision of significant added value there under;

               b)

               the assessment of the added value of the evidence provided by the applicant; and

               c)

               the level of the reduction of the fine accorded to the applicant, which according to Solvay manifestly failed to take account of the extent of the evidential value contributed by it, as well as its substantial and continuous cooperation.

         Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the fine was excessive and disproportionate and that the Commission failed to provide any, alternatively any sufficient, reasons to justify its calculation of the fine.
   More over, the applicant submits that the Commission unlawfully imposed a fine upon the applicant's subsidiary, Solvay Solexis SpA.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission breached essential procedural requirements and rights of defence by not giving full access to the file and by not giving access to non-confidential versions of replies to statements of objections of other parties in the Commission procedure.

      (1)  Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases (OJ 2002 C 45, p. 3)

      (2)  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 2003 L 1, p. 1).