title: Case T-462/14: Action brought on 18 June 2014 — EEB v Commission

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/67

         Action brought on 18 June 2014 — EEB v Commission
   (Case T-462/14)
   2014/C 315/112
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested Commission decision of 8 April 2014;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceeding.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 8 April 2014 (Ares(2014)1102834) dismissing as inadmissible the applicant’s request for internal review regarding Commission Decision 2013/687/EU of 26 November 2013 on the notification by the Hellenic Republic of a transitional national plan referred to in Article 32 of Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging illegality of Article 10 read in conjunction with Articles 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 (1). The applicant submits that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention as the provisions applied by the Commission — Article 10 read in conjunction with Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 — are incompatible with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention. The illegality of these provisions in Regulation No 1367/2006 should have led the Commission to declare the request for internal review admissible.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging in the alternative that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of its obligation to act as Convention compliant as possible. The applicant submits that the Commission should have interpreted Article 10 of Regulation No 1367/2006 and in particular the words ‘administrative act’ in that provision in conformity with Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention and should have left aside the definition of ‘administrative act’ as laid down in Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006, which is according to the applicant too restrictive.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging more alternatively that by adopting the contested measure the Commission acted in breach of Article 2(1)(g) of Regulation No 1367/2006 by holding that Commission Decision 2013/687/EU did not qualify as an act of individual scope.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies (OJ 2006 L 264, p. 13).


title: Case F-82/13: Action brought on 4 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/52

         Action brought on 4 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-82/13)
   2013/C 325/84
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision on the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights under the European Union pension scheme applying the new General Implementing Provisions for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations unlawful;

               —

               annul the decision to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights on the basis of the parameters referred to in the General Implementing Provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-490/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2014  — Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2014 — Freistaat Bayern v Verlag Esterbauer GmbH
   (Case C-490/14)
   (2015/C 034/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Freistaat Bayern

      Defendant: Verlag Esterbauer GmbH

      Question referred

   In relation to the question whether a collection of independent materials exists within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 96/9/EC (1) because the materials can be separated from one another without the value of their informative content being affected, is every conceivable informative value decisive or only the value which is to be determined on the basis of the purpose of the collection and having regard to the resulting typical conduct of users?

      (1)  Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases, OJ 1996 L 77, p. 20.


title: Case T-217/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2006 — Ter Lembeek v Commission (State aid — Aid granted to the Belgian Beaulieu Group — Debt waiver)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 2006 — Ter Lembeek v Commission
   (Case T-217/02) (1)

   (State aid - Aid granted to the Belgian Beaulieu Group - Debt waiver)
   (2006/C 331/62)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Ter Lembeek International NV (Wielsbeke, Belgium) (represented by: J.-P. Vande Maele, F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and H. van Vliet, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision 2002/825/EC of 24 April 2002 on the State aid implemented by Belgium for the Beaulieu Group (Ter Lembeek International) (OJ 2002 L 296, p. 60).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 12.10.2002.


title: Case T-299/04: Action brought on 7 July 2004 by Abdelghani Selmani against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.11.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 284/18

         Action brought on 7 July 2004 by Abdelghani Selmani against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-299/04)
   (2004/C 284/38)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 July 2004 by Abdelghani Selmani, Dublin, Ireland, represented by Mr C. Ó Briain Solicitor.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (1) as well as Article 1 of Council Decision 2004/306/EC (2) insofar as they apply, or purport to apply, to the applicant;

               —

               Annul all Council decisions made on foot of Regulation 2580/2001 having like effect to Decision 2004/306 insofar as they apply, or purport to apply, to the applicant;

               —

               If necessary, annul Article 2 of 2001/931/CFSP (3), Article 1 of Council Common Position 2004/500/CFSP (4) as well as all Council Common Positions adopted on the foot of Common Position 2001/931, in all cases insofar as they apply, or purport to apply, to the applicant;

               —

               In the alternative, declare that the above measures are void, insofar as they apply, or purport to apply, to the applicant;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   Council Common Position 2001/931/CSFP was adopted with the stated purpose of implementing Resolution 1373 (2001) of the Security Council of the United Nations, calling on all signatory states to prevent the financing of terrorist acts by, inter alia, freezing the funds and resources of all persons who may be involved in such acts. Regulation 2580/2001 was adopted in order to implement this common position. Article 2 makes provision for the freezing of assets belonging to persons involved in terrorist activity, to be established by the Council in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 2. Council Decision 2004/306 provides such a list and includes the name of the applicant, an Algerian national. As a result, the applicant's assets in Ireland, where he resides having been granted refugee status, were frozen.
   In support of his application to annul the contested measures the applicant submits that the Council was not competent, under Articles 60, 301 and 308 of the EC Treaty, to adopt Article 2 of Regulation 2580/2001 and Article 1 of Decision 2004/306 and that both the Council and the Commission misused their powers under those articles. The applicant further contends that the list of names appearing in Decision 2004/306 was not established in accordance with the provisions laid down in Article 1 paragraph 4 of Common Position 2001/931. The applicant also claims that the Council had no power under Articles 15 and 34 EU to adopt Common Positions 2001/931 and 2004/500 which, according to the applicant, violate these articles and the EC Treaty in general.
   The applicant also submits that the contested measures violate fundamental principles of Community law, in particular subsidiarity, proportionality and respect for fundamental human rights. He further submits that the Council and the Commission have failed to state adequate reasons as to why the measures considered necessary could not be determined by each individual Member State.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism O J L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 70.

      (2)  Council Decision of 2 April 2004 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2003/902/EC, OJ L 99, 3.4.2004, p. 28.

      (3)  Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 93.

      (4)  Council Common Position 2004/500/CFSP of 17 May 2004 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism and repealing Common Position 2004/309/CFSP.


title: Case T-758/16: Action brought on 31 October 2016 — Crédit Agricole v ECB

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/45

         Action brought on 31 October 2016 — Crédit Agricole v ECB
   (Case T-758/16)
   (2017/C 006/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Crédit Agricole SA (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Articles 256 TFEU and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB/SSM/2016 — 969500TJ5KRTCJQWXH05/165 adopted by the European Central Bank on 24 August 2016;

               —

               order the European Central Bank to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the European Central Bank (ECB) in interpreting the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 575/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on prudential requirements for credit institutions and investment firms and amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (OJ 2013 L 176, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 575/2013’).
               The applicant thus criticises, inter alia, the decision of the ECB of 24 August 2016 dismissing the application which it had submitted for authorisation to exclude public-sector exposures from the calculation of the leverage ratio (‘the contested decision’):

                           —

                           for being at variance with the intention of the European legislature and the objectives pursued by Regulation No 575/2013;

                           —

                           for rendering Article 429(14) of that regulation entirely ineffective;

                           —

                           for constituting an encroachment by the ECB on the powers of the European legislature.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of law vitiating the contested decision in the assessment of the prudential risk associated with regulated savings, in so far as the ECB failed to take into consideration the legal framework, the empirical data relating to such savings and the relevant reports of the European Banking Authority, and in so far as it also committed such an error of assessment in regard to the risk of leverage as well as other associated prudential risks.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality, vitiating the contested decision, in so far as that decision (i) infringes the general principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union and (ii) fails to meet the specific requirements attached to the principle of proportionality in matters of prudential supervision, which require that prudential requirements be adapted to the business model of the bank and to the associated risks for the financial sector and the economy.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 September 2000 in Case C-369/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Trevor Robert Fisher and Penny Fisher, trading as "TR & P Fisher" (Aid schemes — Computerised database — Disclosure of information)

text:
C 335/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            25.11.2000
      obligation to do so derives from the employment relationship                accident and whose liability is covered by compulsory motor-
      between those employees and the transferor, and in accordance               vehicle insurance, where those passengers are carried free of
      with the terms agreed in that relationship. Directive 77/187                charge, whether or not there is any fault on the part of the
      does not, however, preclude the transferee from altering the                driver of the vehicle which caused the accident, only if the
      terms of the employment relationship where national law allows              domestic law of the Member State concerned requires such cover
      such an alteration in situations other than the transfer of an              in respect of personal injuries caused in the same conditions to
      undertaking.                                                                other third-party passengers.
(1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.                                                 2.    Articles 1(2) and 5(3) of Directive 84/5, as amended by
                                                                                Annex I, Part IX F, entitled ‘Insurance’, of the Act concerning
                                                                                the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the
                                                                                Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties,
                                                                                preclude domestic laws laying down maximum amounts of
                                                                                compensation that are lower than the minimum amounts of
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                cover laid down by those provisions where, in the absence of
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                        fault on the part of the driver of the vehicle which caused the
                                                                                accident, only civil liability for materialisation of risk arises.
                      of 14 September 2000
in Case C-348/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   (1) OJ C 358 of 21.11.1998.
the Tribunal da Comarca de Setúbal): Vitor Manuel
Mendes Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado Correia Ferreira
    v Companhia de Seguros Mundial Confiança SA (1)
(Compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of
motor vehicles — Directives 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC —
Minimum amounts of cover — Type of civil liability —
Injury caused to a member of the family of the insured                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           person or driver)
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                           (2000/C 335/07)
                                                                                of 14 September 2000
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                            in Case C-369/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
                    in the European Court Reports)                          Bench Division (Divisional Court)): The Queen v Minister
In Case C-348/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Trevor Robert
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal da                        Fisher and Penny Fisher, trading as ‘TR & P Fisher’ (1)
Comarca de Setúbal, Portugal, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Vitor Manuel                  (Aid schemes — Computerised database — Disclosure of
Mendes Ferreira and Maria Clara Delgado Correia Ferreira and                                              information)
Companhia de Seguros Mundial Confiança SA — on the
interpretation of the Second Council Directive (84/5/EEC) of                                           (2000/C 335/08)
30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in
respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17) and                                   (Language of the case: English)
the Third Council Directive (90/232/EEC) of 14 May 1990 on
the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor         In Case C-369/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the High Court of
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                       Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Div-
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann and H. Ragnem-              isional Court), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
alm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              pending before that court between The Queen and Minister of
has given a judgment on 14 September 2000, in which it has                  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Trevor Robert Fisher
ruled:                                                                      and Penny Fisher, trading as ‘TR & P Fisher’ — on the
                                                                            interpretation of Articles 3(1) and 9 of Council Regulation
1.    Article 3 of the Second Council Directive (84/5/EEC) of               (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an
      30 December 1983, on the approximation of the laws of the             integrated administration and control system for certain
      Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in        Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p. 1) and of
      respect of the use of motor vehicles, requires compulsory             Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of
      insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor      23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying
      vehicles to cover personal injuries to passengers who are             the integrated administration and control system for certain
      members of the family of the insured person, of the driver of the     Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36) — the Court
      vehicle or of any other person who incurs civil liability for an      (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 335/5
the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm,                   of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                  Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 Sep-                of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977
tember 2000, in which it has ruled:                                          L 145, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
                                                                             President of the First Chamber, acting for the President of the
1.    Articles 3(1) and 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92             Fifth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
      of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated adminis-                M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
      tration and control system for certain Community aid schemes,          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
      coupled with the general principles of Community law, allow            on 14 September 2000, in which it has ruled:
      the competent authority, after balancing the respective interests
      of the persons concerned, to disclose data relating to crops sown
      during the preceding years, and which have been supplied by or         Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of
      on behalf of a former claimant for payment under the arable            17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
      area payment scheme, to a new farmer who has need of those             States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
      data in order to be able to apply for such payments in respect of      tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that
      the same fields and who is unable otherwise to obtain them.            it does not apply to services consisting, not in providing care to
                                                                             persons by diagnosing and treating a disease or any other health
2.    In the event of refusal to disclose the information requested, the     disorder, but in establishing the genetic affinity of individuals through
      competent authority cannot, on the basis of the information            biological tests. The fact that the doctor acting as expert was
      which it did not provide to the applicant at the time of the           instructed by a court is irrelevant in that regard.
      application, impose penalties on him under Article 9 of
      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December
                                                                             (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
      1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated
      administration and control system for certain Community aid
      schemes.
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 14 September 2000
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             in Case C-16/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      of 14 September 2000
                                                                             the Cour Administrative): Ministre de la Santé v Jeff
                                                                                Erpelding (1)
in Case C-384/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
            the Landesgericht St Pölten): D. v W. (1)
                                                                             (Council Directive 93/16/EEC — Interpretation of Articles
                                                                             10 and 19 — Use of the title of specialist doctor in the host
(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for medical care provided
in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions                   Member State by a doctor who has obtained in another
— Supply by a doctor approved as a court expert of an                        Member State a qualification not included as regards that
                                                                                State on the list in Article 7 of the directive)
                  opinion in a paternity dispute)
                           (2000/C 335/09)                                                              (2000/C 335/10)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                 (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-384/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesgericht St                 In Case C-16/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Pölten (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour Administrat-
pending before that court between D. and W., intervener:                     ive, Luxembourg, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Osterreichischer Bundesschatz — on the interpretation of                     pending before that court between Ministre de la Santé and
Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC)                Jeff Erpelding — on the interpretation of Council Directive


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-339/00: Ireland v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial years 1997 and 1998 — Aid for afforestation of agricultural land — Article 2(1)(c) and (2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 — Concept of a "private-law legal person" — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to cooperate in good faith)

text:
C 289/2                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            29.11.2003
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                       of 16 October 2003                                  in Case C-223/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Østre Landsret): AstraZeneca A/S v Lægemiddelstyr-
                                                                                elsen (1)
in Case C-339/00: Ireland v Commission of the European
                         Communities (1)                                   (Medicinal products — Marketing authorisation of a generic
                                                                           medicinal product — Withdrawal of the marketing authoris-
                                                                           ation of the reference medicinal product — Abridged pro-
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial years                                                          cedure)
1997 and 1998 — Aid for afforestation of agricultural land
— Article 2(1)(c) and (2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2080/                                           (2003/C 289/03)
92 — Concept of a ‘private-law legal person’ — Principle of
the protection of legitimate expectations — Duty to cooperate
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
                           in good faith)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                         (2003/C 289/02)
                   (Language of the case: English)                         In Case C-223/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                           EC by the Østre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the proceedings pending before that court between Astra-
                                                                           Zeneca A/S and Lægemiddelstyrelsen, participant: Generics
                                                                           (UK) Ltd, on the interpretation of Council Directive 65/65/EEC
                                                                           of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid
In Case C-339/00, Ireland (Agent: D. J. O’Hagan, assisted by               down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to
R. Brady, SC, and A. M. Collins, BL) v Commission of the                   medicinal products (OJ, English Special Edition 1965-1966,
European Communities (Agents: M. Niejahr and K. Fitch,                     p. 20), as amended by Council Directive 93/39/EEC of 14 June
assisted by J. O’Reilly, SC): Application for annulment of                 1993 (OJ 1993 L 214, p. 22), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
Commission Decision 2000/449/EC of 5 July 2000 excluding                   composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by                   R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), N. Colneric and
the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the                       J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF)                  H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
(OJ 2000 L 180, p. 49) in so far as it excludes from Community             16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:
financing the sum of EUR 4 844 345,35 in afforestation aid
paid by Ireland for the financial years 1997 and 1998, the                 1.   On a proper construction of point 8(a)(iii) of the third
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans,                          paragraph of Article 4 of Council Directive 65/65/EEC of
President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of                    26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid
the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, S. von Bahr                          down by Law, Regulation or Administrative Action relating to
(Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                         medicinal products, as amended by Council Directive 93/39/
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,                EEC of 14 June 1993, ‘product ... marketed’ refers to
has given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:                           a medicinal product which has been granted a marketing
                                                                                authorisation in the Member State concerned.
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           2.   In order for an application for marketing authorisation of a
                                                                                generic medicinal product to be dealt with by way of the
                                                                                abridged procedure provided for in point 8(a)(iii) of the third
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                          paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 65/65, as amended, it is
                                                                                necessary and sufficient that the marketing authorisation of the
                                                                                reference medicinal product be in force in the Member State
                                                                                concerned on the date of that application.
(1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001.


title: Case F-159/12: Action brought on 26 December 2012 — ZZ v ECDC

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/26

         Action brought on 26 December 2012 — ZZ v ECDC
   (Case F-159/12)
   2013/C 63/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: V. Kolias, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant and the order to re-instate him in the service and pay him the difference between all the emoluments he would have received from the date of effect of the contested decision and the monetary compensation he has received.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision of ECDC of 24.2.2012 to dismiss the applicant, so that, in order to comply with such judgment, ECDC shall be required under Article 266 TFEU to re-instate him in the service and pay him all emoluments he would have received from the date of effect of the contested decision together with default interest at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations applicable during the period concerned, increased by two percentage points, minus the monetary compensation he has received and the unemployment allowance he will until his re-instatement have received;

               —

               annul the letter of 18.9.2012 from the Head of ECDC’s OCS Unit rejecting the applicant’s administrative complaint against the contested decision, insofar as said letter may produce autonomous legal effects;

               —

               order ECDC to pay all the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 September 2004 in Case C-319/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): Petri Manninen (Income tax — Tax credit for dividends paid by Finnish companies — Articles 56 EC and 58 EC — Cohesion of the tax system)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/4

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 7 September 2004
   in Case C-319/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): Petri Manninen (1)

   (Income tax - Tax credit for dividends paid by Finnish companies - Articles 56 EC and 58 EC - Cohesion of the tax system)
   (2004/C 262/07)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   In Case C-319/92: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court by order of 10 September 2002, which arrived at the Court on 12 September 2002, in the proceedings brought by Petri Manninen — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 September 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Articles 56 EC and 58 EC preclude legislation whereby the entitlement of a person fully taxable in one Member State to a tax credit in relation to dividends paid to him by limited companies is excluded where those companies are not established in that State.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 9.11.2002.


title: Case T-208/03: Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Stavroula Gogos-Skarpatzi and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 184/54               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          2.8.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                European Communities on 11 June 2003 by Stavroula Gogos-
                                                                           Skarpatzi, residing in Waterloo (Belgium), and 11 other offi-
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority           cials, represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with
      changing, with effect from a year not further specified              an address for service in Luxembourg.
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      during which the applicant was an official of the
      Commission of the European Communities), the proce-                  The applicants claim that the Court should:
      dure for calculating the annual expense of travelling to
      Greece in respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into
      consideration for the destination of Athens;                         —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
                                                                                changing, with effect from a year not further specified
      or, in the alternative,                                                    (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
—     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority                 during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
      to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified                sion of the European Communities), the procedure for
      (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period                     calculating the annual expense of travelling to Greece in
      during which the applicant was an official of the                          respect of the journey via Brindisi, as taken into consid-
      Commission of the European Communities), the cost of                       eration for the Greek islands, when travel must be
      the sea passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier                    through Athens or Piraeus;
      posts (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an
      ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;
                                                                                or, in the alternative,
—     annul all the applicant's pay slips implementing the
      decisions annulment of which is sought;
                                                                           —     annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
—     reimburse to the applicant all the amounts not paid                        to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
      following implementation of the decisions annulment of                     (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
      which is sought, together with legal interest;                             during which the applicants were officials of the Commis-
                                                                                sion of the European Communities), the cost of the sea
—     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the                      passage from Brindisi to various Greek frontier posts
      Commission of the European Communities to pay those                        (Corfu, Igoumenitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft
      costs.                                                                     type seat’ ticket;
                                                                           —     annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
                                                                                decisions annulment of which is sought;
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in this case seeks the annulment of the Commis-              —     reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid
sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual                        following implementation of the decisions annulment of
travel expenses to Greece.                                                       which is sought, together with legal interest;
The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
applicant in support of his application are similar to those of            —     make the appropriate ruling as to costs and order the
the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).                            Commission of the European Communities to pay those
                                                                                costs.
(1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
(2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
Action brought on 11 June 2003 by Stavroula Gogos-                         The applicants in this case seek the annulment of the Commis-
Skarpatzi and Others against the Commission of the                         sion's decision changing the method of calculating annual
                      European Communities                                 travel expenses to Greece.
                           (Case T-208/03)
                                                                           The pleas in law and main arguments put forward by the
                          (2003/C 184/113)                                 applicants in support of their application are similar to those
                                                                           of the applicants in Cases T-221/02 (1) and T-44/03 (2).
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247, 12.10.02, p. 17.
                                                                           (2) OJ C 101, 26.04.03, p. 40.
An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-99/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hovrätten för Västra Sverige by order of 10 March 2000 in the case of Kenny Roland Lyckeskog against Public Prosecutor's Office, Uddevalla

text:
C 149/26               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  27.5.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hovrätten för               Action brought on 16 March 2000 by the Commission of
Västra Sverige by order of 10 March 2000 in the case of                 the European Communities against the Italian Republic
Kenny Roland Lyckeskog against Public Prosecutor’s
                        Office, Uddevalla
                                                                                (Case C-100/00)
                          (Case C-99/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 149/48)
                         (2000/C 149/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
European Communities by order of 10 March 2000 by the                 Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 March
Hovrätten för Västra Sverige, which was received at the Court         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Registry on 16 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling on the            represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser,
following questions:                                                  and Giacinto Bisogni, an appeal court judge on secondment to
                                                                      the Commission’s Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an
                                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
1. Is a national court or tribunal which in practice is the last      Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    instance in a case, because leave to appeal is needed in
    order for the case to be reviewed by the country’s supreme
    court, a court or tribunal within the meaning of the third
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
    paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty?
2. May a court or tribunal within the meaning of the third            — Declare that, by making immersion heaters subject to
    paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty decline to                  safety requirements not provided for by Directive
    request a preliminary ruling where it considers it clear how          73/23/EEC (1) and, consequently, by rejecting, in the case
    the questions of Community law in point must be decided,              of products manufactured in accordance with Standard EN
    even if those questions are not covered by the doctrine of            60335-2-21, the presumption of conformity with safety
    acte clair or acte éclairé?                                           requirements, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          obligations under Community law;
    In the event that the Court of Justice answers the first
    question in the negative, or the first question in the            — Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceed-
    affirmative and the second question in the negative but not           ings.
    otherwise — the Hovrätten also wishes to have an answer
    to the following questions:
3. Under Article 45 of Council Regulation (EEC)                       Pleas in law and main arguments
    No 918/83(1) of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community
    system of reliefs from customs duty, subject to Articles 46
    to 49 of the regulation, goods contained in the personal          Article 9 of Directive 73/23/EEC embodies the so-called
    luggage of travellers coming from a third country are to be       safeguard clause which allows Member States to adopt restric-
    admitted free of import duties, provided that such imports        tive measures for reasons of safety even with respect to
    are of a non-commercial nature. Does this mean that the           products manufactured in conformity with a harmonised
    nature and quantity of the goods should, on an objective          standard. However, such measures must be justified by factual
    view, not be such as to raise doubts about the nature of          evidence that the products in question, albeit manufactured
    the import? Or may regard be had to the individual’s life         in conformity with a harmonised standard, are likely to
    style and customs?                                                compromise the safety of users. In the absence of such
                                                                      evidence, or in the absence of a formal communication
4. What is the legal significance of a national authority’s           in accordance with Article 9 of Directive 73/23/EEC, the
    provisions which indicate the duty-free quantity of a             Commission maintains that immersion heaters which are in
    certain product — to which Council Regulation (EEC)               conformity with Standard EN 60335-2-21 must be freely
    No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community                 released on the market without being made subject to
    system of reliefs from customs duty is applicable —               additional requirements.
    normally to be admitted?
                                                                      (1) OJ L 77 of 26.3.1973, p. 29.
(1) OJ L 105 of 23.4.83, p. 1.


title: Case T-392/05: Action brought on  27 October 2005  — Mecklenburg-Strelitzer Montage- und Tiefbau v Commission

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/14

         Action brought on 27 October 2005 — Mecklenburg-Strelitzer Montage- und Tiefbau v Commission
   (Case T-392/05)
   (2006/C 22/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Mecklenburg-Strelitzer Montage- und Tiefbau GmbH (Neustrelitz, Germany) (represented by: M. Grehsin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Decision of the Commission of 5 March 2003 (document number C(2003) 519) in so far as the Land guidelines of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania have, according to Article 1(3) of the Decision, been qualified as illegal State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC as regards subprogramme C (shared offices abroad) in the territory of ‘official candidates for accession’.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the contested Decision the Commission found that the guidelines of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania for the granting of aid to promote the sale and export of products from Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, in so far as they grant assistance that does not fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 (1). According to the Commission there is also State aid if provision has been made for the granting of aid in respect of export measures to countries which have the official status of candidates for accession to the European Union.
   The applicant maintains that the contested Decision is unlawful as the defendant has equated an official candidate for accession with a Member State of the European Union and consequently applied the rules relating to the common market. Furthermore, in the view of the applicant, the aid scheme does not infringe Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 or Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 (2). Finally, the applicant claims that the contested Decision is unintelligible. In this connection it observes that the notification procedure should not apply to de minimis aid.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid.

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises.


title: Case T-329/09: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Fédération internationale des logis v OHIM (Shade of brown) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a shade of brown — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2010 — Fédération internationale des logis v OHIM (Shade of brown)
   (Case T-329/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of a shade of brown - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 30/69
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fédération internationale des logis (Paris, France) (represented by: initially, C. Champagner Katz, and subsequently B. Brisset, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 June 2009 (Case R 202/2009-1) concerning an application for registration of a shade of brown as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the Fédération internationale des logis to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case C-76/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2014  — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 2002/22/EC — Electronic communications — Networks and services — Designation of the undertakings responsible for universal service obligations — Incorrect transposition — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260(2) TFEU — Financial penalties — Penalty payment — Lump sum payment)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 June 2014 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-76/13) (1)

   ((Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/22/EC - Electronic communications - Networks and services - Designation of the undertakings responsible for universal service obligations - Incorrect transposition - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260(2) TFEU - Financial penalties - Penalty payment - Lump sum payment))
   2014/C 292/06
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade, G. Braun, L. Nicolae and M. Heller, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, acting as Agent, assisted by L. Morais, advogado)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               By failing to adopt all of the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Portugal (C-154/09, EU:C:2010:591), the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU.

               2)

               The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a lump sum of EUR 3 million.

               3)

               The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay to the European Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 10  000 for each day of delay in adopting the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Commission v Portugal (C-154/09, EU:C:2010:591), from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case until the date of full compliance with that judgment.

               4)

               The Portuguese Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case T-693/13: Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Mikhalchanka v Council

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/25

         Action brought on 31 December 2013 — Mikhalchanka v Council
   (Case T-693/13)
   2014/C 93/42
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aliaksei Mikhalchanka (Minsk, Belarus) (represented by: M. Michalauskas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2013/534/CFSP of 29 October 2013 amending Decision 2012/642/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1054/2013 of 29 October 2013 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus, in so far as it concerns the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of defence, since the prior inter partes procedure was not respected by the Council.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging insufficient reasoning, since the reasons for the measures do not allow the applicant to contest their validity before the General Court and the latter to exercise its review of their lawfulness.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an error of assessment, in so far as the contested measure lacks all factual justification.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in particular with regard to the restriction on entry into, and transit through, the territory of the European Union.


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-257/02 (1)

   (2004/C 228/71)
   By order of 6 May 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-257/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof): Stuij en de Man B.V. v Republic of Austria.

      (1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.


title: Joined Cases T-309/04, T-317/04, T-329/04 and T-336/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 October 2008 — TV 2/Danmark v Commission (State aid — Measures implemented by the Danish authorities for the public broadcaster TV 2 to finance its public service remit — Measures classified as State aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the common market — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Interest in bringing proceedings — Rights of the defence — Public broadcasting service — Definition and financing — State resources — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Obligation to examine)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 October 2008 — TV 2/Danmark v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-309/04, T-317/04, T-329/04 and T-336/04) (1)

   (State aid - Measures implemented by the Danish authorities for the public broadcaster TV 2 to finance its public service remit - Measures classified as State aid partly compatible and partly incompatible with the common market - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Interest in bringing proceedings - Rights of the defence - Public broadcasting service - Definition and financing - State resources - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Obligation to examine)
   (2008/C 313/42)
   Language of the case: English and Danish
   Parties

      Applicant in Case T-309/04: TV 2/Danmark A/S (Odense, Denmark) (represented by: O. Koktvedgaard and M. Thorninger, Lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the applicant in Case T-309/04: European Broadcasting Union (EBU) (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Carnelutti, Lawyer)

      Applicant in Case T-317/04: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde, Agent, assisted by P. Biering and K. Lundgaard Hansen, Lawyers)

      Applicant in Case T-329/04: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd (West Drayton, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (S. Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, Lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the applicant in Case T-329/04: SBS TV A/S, formerly TV Danmark A/S (Skovlunde, Denmark); and SBS Danish Television Ltd, formerly Kanal 5 Denmark Ltd (Hounslow, Middlesex, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Vandermeersch, K.-U. Karl and H. Peytz, Lawyers)

      Applicants in Case T-336/04: SBS TV A/S and SBS Danish Television Ltd

      Intervener in support of the applicanst in Case T-336/04: Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

      Defendant in Cases T-309/04, T-317/04, T-329/04 and T-336/04: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: in Cases T-309/04, T-317/04 and T-329/04 by H. Støvlbæk and M. Niejahr, in Case T-329/04, also by N. Kahn and in Case T-336/04 by N. Kahn and M. Niejahr, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant in Case T-309/04: SBS TV A/S; SBS Danish Television Ltd and Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd

      Interveners in support of the defendant in Case T-329/04 and T-336/04: Kingdom of Denmark; TV 2/Danmark A/S and European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
   Re:
   APPLICATION, in Cases T-309/04 and T-317/04, for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/217/EC of 19 May 2004 on measures implemented by Denmark for TV 2/Danmark (OJ 2006 L 85, p. 1; corrigendum in OJ 2006 L 368, p. 112) and, in the alternative, of Article 2 of that decision or of paragraphs 3 and 4 of that Article, and, in Cases T-329/04 and T-336/04, for annulment of that decision in so far as it establishes the existence of State aid which is partly compatible with the common market.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Joins Cases T-309/04, T-317/04, T-329/04 and T-336/04 for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2006/217/EC of 19 May 2004 on measures implemented by Denmark for TV 2/Danmark;

               3.

               Orders TV 2/Danmark A/S, the Kingdom of Denmark and the Commission each to bear their own costs in Cases T-309/04 R and T-317/04 R;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear its own costs in Cases T-309/04 and T-317/04, together with the costs incurred by TV 2/Danmark A/S and the Kingdom of Denmark in those cases;

               5.

               Orders the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), SBS TV A/S, SBS Danish Television Ltd and Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd each to bear their own costs in Case T-309/04;

               6.

               Orders SBS TV, SBS Danish Television and Viasat Broadcasting UK each to bear their own costs, incurred both in their capacity as applicants and in their capacity as interveners, in Cases T-329/04 and T-336/04;

               7.

               Orders Viasat Broadcasting UK to pay one-tenth of the costs incurred by the Commission, by TV 2/Danmark A/S, by the Kingdom of Denmark and by the EBU in Case T-329/04;

               8.

               Orders SBS TV and SBS Danish Television to pay one-tenth of the costs incurred by the Commission, by TV 2/Danmark A/S, by the Kingdom of Denmark and by the EBU in Case T-336/04;

               9.

               Orders the Commission, TV 2/Danmark A/S, the Kingdom of Denmark and the EBU each to bear nine-tenths of their own costs in Cases T-329/04 and T-336/04.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-579/14: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Figurative mark representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Surface pattern — Application of a pattern on the packaging of a product)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Birkenstock Sales v EUIPO (representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines)
   (Case T-579/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Surface pattern - Application of a pattern on the packaging of a product))
   (2017/C 006/39)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Birkenstock Sales GmbH (Vettelschoß, Germany) (represented by: C. Menebröcker and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: initially G. Schneider and D. Walicka, and subsequently D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 May 2014 (Case R 1952/2013-1), concerning the international registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark representing a pattern of wavy, crisscrossing lines.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 15 May 2014 (Case R 1952/2013-1) in so far as it concerns the following goods: ‘artificial limbs, eyes and teeth’, ‘suture materials; suture materials for operations’ and ‘animal skins, hides’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Birkenstock Sales GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay half of those incurred by EUIPO, and EUIPO to bear half of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case T-304/14: Action brought on 29 April 2014  — Sun Alloys Europe v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/52

         Action brought on 29 April 2014 — Sun Alloys Europe v Commission
   (Case T-304/14)
   2014/C 223/55
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Sun Alloys Europe GmbH (Bad Sobernheim, Germany) (represented by: D. Greinacher, J. Martin and B. Scholtka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to the support for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and from mine gas in accordance with the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, ‘EEG’) and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users against the Federal Republic of Germany — State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) of 18 December 2013, published in the Official Journal of the EU on 7 February 2014 (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73), in so far as the Commission classifies the special compensation regime pursuant to Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the EEG as State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred pursuant to Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107 TFEU
               The applicant claims that the Commission wrongly classified the support for renewable energies by way of the surcharge system and the special compensation regime to reduce the EEG-surcharge as aid and therefore should not have initiated the formal investigation procedure.

                           —

                           In this connection, the applicant contends that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in the preliminary assessment of the issue of whether the special compensation regime constitutes aid, since the special compensation regime, as an exception to the EEG-surcharge, does not grant any advantage which energy-intensive users would not have obtained under normal market conditions.

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that no State resources are affected. Since the proceeds from the EEG-surcharge already did not constitute State resources, no State resources could be affected even by the exception for energy-intensive users.

                           —

                           The applicant further claims that the special compensation regime also does not distort competition. At most, it establishes the competitive conditions which exist without the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               The applicant claims that, by adopting the decision, the Commission also infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The German scheme to support renewable energy has already been subject to a thorough State aid assessment. In that assessment, the Commission in 2002 concluded that a transfer of State resources is not linked to that scheme. Since the 2012 EEG does not, in this respect, contain any substantial amendments to the legal position at the time, the economic operators concerned ought not to have expected a re-examination, but should have been entitled to rely on the continuance of the scheme.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Misuse of powers
               Lastly, the applicant considers that the Commission misused the discretion afforded to it under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. By initiating the investigation procedure, the Commission is primarily pursuing the objective of fundamentally harmonising the support for renewable electricity. That fundamental objective is also evidenced by the new draft guidelines for environmental and energy aid, in which the Commission for the first time lays down detailed schemes to support renewable energies. In order to work towards a harmonisation, the Commission would, however, have to apply the procedure for approximating laws pursuant to Articles 116 and 117 TFEU, which is laid down for that purpose.


title: Case T-274/03: Action brought on 4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 264/30               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          1.11.2003
Action brought on 4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin                        Mark or sign cited in         The German mark ‘FOCUS’
Verlag GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the                 opposition:                   (No 395 46 204) in respect of
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                    goods and services in Classes 9,
                                                                                16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42
                         (Case T-274/03)
                                                                        Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition
                                                                        sition Division:
                         (2003/C 264/52)
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                        Appeal:
(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was       Pleas in law:                 —     Submission in the oppo-
                        submitted: German)                                                                  sition     proceedings       of
                                                                                adequate evidence of the
                                                                                applicant’s earlier right;
                                                                                —     Infringement of the appli-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                              cant’s right to a hearing;
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                —     Infringement of the appli-
4 August 2003 by Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH, Munich                                                          cant’s right of due process;
(Germany), represented by U. Gürtler, lawyer. France Telecom
S.A., Paris, was also a party to the proceedings before the                                           —     Infringement of Article 42 of
Board of Appeal.                                                                                Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)
                                                                                and Rule 20(3) of Regulation
                                                                                (EC) No 2868/95 (2).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
—     annul Decision No 1956/2001 of the Opposition Div-                    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
      ision of the defendant of 2 August 2001 in opposition             (2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December
      proceedings B 260576;                                                 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).
—     annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
      defendant of 30 April 2003 in appeal proceedings R 849/
      2001-4;
—     instruct the defendant to make a determination on the
      merits in opposition proceedings B 260576, taking
      account of the legal view of the matter formed by the
      adjudicating court;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.          Action brought on 23 July 2003 by Dionisia Elefteriadi
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-277/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2003/C 264/53)
Applicant for Com-            France Telecom S.A.
munity trade mark:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
Community trade mark          Word mark ‘Focus One’ in respect
sought:                       of goods and services in Classes 9,
                              35, 38 and 42 — application
                              No 984 484
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
sign cited in the oppo-                                                 European Communities on 23 July 2003 by Dionisia Elefteria-
sition proceedings:                                                     di, residing in Athens, represented by Timotheos Sigalas.


title: Case C-143/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 13 March 2007 — Firma A.O.B. Reuter & Co. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 13 March 2007 — Firma A.O.B. Reuter & Co. v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-143/07)
   (2007/C 117/25)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Firma A.O.B. Reuter & Co.

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   Question referred
   Is solely false information supplied by an exporter in its export declaration liable to sanction under Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 (1) or is the failure to comply with the material requirements for claiming a refund alone the subject of sanctions?

      (1)  OJ L 351, p. 1.


title: Case T-52/03: Action brought on 13 February 2003 by Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 124/22              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          24.5.2003
Action brought by Alsen AG against the Commission of                     event should guarantee costs be imposed upon the applicant
      the European Communities on 31 January 2003                        that were necessary for it to pay in pursuing its rights.
                         (Case T-28/03)                                  (1 ) Decision 94/815/EC of 30 November 1994 in Cases IV/33.126
                                                                              and 33.122 (Cement).
                                                                         (2 ) Judgment of 15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95 and Others
                        (2003/C 124/39)                                       [2000] ECR II-491.
                  (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Action brought on 13 February 2003 by Knauf Westdeut-
European Communities on 31 January 2003 by Alsen AG,                     sche Gipswerke KG against the Commission of the
Hamburg (Germany), represented by K. Moosecker and                                            European Communities
F. Weimer, lawyers.
                                                                                (Case T-52/03)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2003/C 124/40)
—     order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
      EUR 139 002,21 together with interest at an overall rate                              (Language of the case: German)
      of 5,75 % for the period from 15 April 2000 until
      payment has been made in full;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 13 February 2003 by Knauf
                                                                         Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG, Iphofen (Germany), represented
                                                                         by M. Klusmann and F. Wiemer, lawyers.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant seeks an order that the Commission pay the
costs of a guarantee. According to the applicant, those costs            —      annul Commission Decision C(2002)4570 final of
arose because the Commission imposed a fine on the applicant,                   27 November 2002 in so far as it concerns the applicant;
by decision (1), for an alleged infringement of Article 81 EC.
By judgment of 15 March 2000 ( 2) that decision was annulled             —      in the alternative, reduce appropriately the fine imposed
by the Court of First Instance in so far as it concerned the                    on the applicant in the contested decision;
applicant. During the procedure before the Court the applicant
had to lodge securities in the form of two bank guarantees for           —      order the defendant to pay the costs.
the fine during the period April/May 1995 to May 2000,
for which the issuing banks’ charged commission of the
abovementioned amount.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant claims that under Article 233 EC it has a right
to require the Commission to repay the costs of the guarantees.          In the contested decision the Commission found that the
The Commission is obliged to adopt the measures that follow              applicant and three other undertakings had infringed
from the judgment of 15 March 2000 and those measures                    Article 81(1) by participating in a body of agreements and
include the payment of the guarantee costs of the successful             concerted practices in the plasterboard sector. A fine of EUR
party. The Court of First Instance itself stated in the judgment         85,8 million was imposed on the applicant.
that the refund of the cost of guarantees is one of the measures
which the Commission must take under Article 233 EC.
                                                                         The applicant contests that decision and claims that it infringes
                                                                         the applicant’s rights of defence and the principle of the right
Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission’s                  to due process of law. It submits, inter alia, that in essence the
obligation to refund the guarantee costs also follows from               decision is based on evidence against it which has never been
Article 288(2) EC in conjunction with Article 235 EC. In no              made available to the applicant despite its requests to that
 ---pagebreak--- 24.5.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 124/23
effect. Moreover, the right to due process of law is infringed            European Communities on 26 February 2003 by Koffiebrand-
by the case-handler’s inadequate knowledge of languages or                erij en Theehandel ‘Drie Mollen sinds 1818’ B.V., ’s-Hertogen-
the premature change of case-handler.                                     bosch, the Netherlands, represented by Mr P. Steinhauser,
                                                                          Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg. Manuel
                                                                          Nabeiro Silveria, Lda. was also a party to the proceedings
The applicant also submits that it is not guilty of any                   before the Board of Appeal.
infringement of Article 81(1) EC. It complains that the
Commission based its decision on an incoherent presentation
of the events. In the alternative, it submits that in any event it
cannot be charged with participation in a single infringement             The applicant claims that the Court should:
over a lengthy period. This leads to a reduction in gravity and
to the limitation of actions in respect of individual acts that
took place more than five years before the beginning of                   —     annul the decision of 17 December 2002 of the Second
proceedings.                                                                    Board of Appeal in case R 270/2001-2
                                                                          —     order the office to bear only its own costs.
Moreover, the applicant submits that the decision infringes
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/62 with regard to the upper
limit of the fine. The applicant is not the ultimate parent
company of ‘Unternehmensgruppe Knauf’ and it cannot be
held liable for the conduct of other companies, because the
Knauf undertaking is not connected via a single legal person              Pleas in law and main arguments
as ultimate parent company of the group. The applicant also
complains that the Commission failed to carry out the
necessary investigations in that respect.                                 Applicant for the Com-         Manuel Nabeiro Silveria, Lda.
                                                                          munity trade mark:
Furthermore, the applicant complains that the Commission
infringed Article 253 EC and Article 15(2) of Regulation                  Community trade mark           Figurative mark ‘GALAXIA’, for
No 17/62 as a result of the assessment of the fine, which                 sought:                        ‘coffee’ in class 30 (registration n
exceeded the limits of its discretion. Moreover, the Commission                                          812073)
infringed the principle of equal treatment, because it did not
reduce the applicant’s fine even though the applicant had
                                                                          Proprietor of mark or          KOFFIEBRANDERIJ EN THEE-
cooperated with the Commission to the same extent as BPB
                                                                          sign cited in the oppo-        HANDEL ‘DRIE MOLLEN SINDS
plc., whose fine was reduced by 30 %.
                                                                          sition proceedings:            1818’
Finally, the applicant complains of the excessive length of the           Mark or sign cited in          National marks ‘GALA’ for certain
procedure and claims that it is an infringement of Article 6(1)           opposition:                    goods in class 30
of the European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights.
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-          Opposition rejected.
                                                                          sition Division:
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Opponent’s appeal dismissed.
                                                                          Appeal:
Action brought on 26 February 2003 by Koffiebranderij                     Pleas in law:                  —     misapplication of Article 42
en Theehandel ‘Drie Mollen sinds 1818’ B.V. against the                                                        paragraph 1 and Article 8
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                                                         paragraph 1 b) of Regu-
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                                                                     lation 40/94 (1). The appli-
                                                                                cant challenges the Board of
                                                                                Appeal’s conclusion that
                         (Case T-66/03)                                                                        there is no likelihood of con-
                                                                                fusion between the two
                                                                                marks.
                        (2003/C 124/41)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                               Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-20/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Wolfram Bechtel and Marie-Laure Bechtel v Finanzamt Offenburg

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 15 January 2016 — Wolfram Bechtel and Marie-Laure Bechtel v Finanzamt Offenburg
   (Case C-20/16)
   (2016/C 118/12)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Wolfram Bechtel, Marie-Laure Bechtel

      Defendant: Finanzamt Offenburg

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 39 EC (now Article 45 TFEU) preclude a provision of German law according to which contributions to the French pension and health insurance fund paid by an employee living in Germany but working for the French civil service — in contrast to comparable contributions paid by an employee working in Germany to the German social security fund — do not reduce the income tax basis of assessment, if, under the Convention between Germany and France for the avoidance of double taxation, the salary may not be taxed in Germany and only increases the tax rate to be applied to other income?

               2.

               Is question 1 to be answered in the affirmative even if, within the framework of the taxation of the salary by France, the insurance contributions in question — whether specifically or at a flat rate —

                           a)

                           are taken into account as reducing tax, or

                           b)

                           could have been taken into account in reducing tax, but were not the subject of a claim to that effect and therefore were not actually taken into account?


title: Joined Cases T-231/06 and T-237/06: Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Netherlands v Commission (State aid — Public service broadcasting — Measures taken by the Netherlands authorities — Decision declaring State aid compatible in part and incompatible in part with the common market — New aid or existing aid — Concept of State aid — Concept of undertaking — Overcompensation for the costs of the public service mission — Proportionality — Duty to give reasons — Rights of the defence)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-231/06 and T-237/06) (1)

   (State aid - Public service broadcasting - Measures taken by the Netherlands authorities - Decision declaring State aid compatible in part and incompatible in part with the common market - New aid or existing aid - Concept of State aid - Concept of undertaking - Overcompensation for the costs of the public service mission - Proportionality - Duty to give reasons - Rights of the defence)
   2011/C 38/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H. Sevenster and M. de Grave, Agents) (Case T-231/06); and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) (Hilversum, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Feenstra and H. Speyart van Woerden, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and H. van Vliet, Agents)

      Re:

   Applications for the annulment of Commission Decision 2008/136/EC of 22 June 2006 on the ad hoc financing of Dutch public service broadcasters C 2/2004 (ex NN 170/2003) (OJ 2008 L 49, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the actions;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs in Case T-231/06;

               3.

               orders Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) to pay the costs in Case T-237/06.

      (1)  OJ C 261, of 28.10.2006.


title: Case T-494/12: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014  — Biscuits Poult v OHIM — Banketbakkerij Merba (Biscuit) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a broken cookie — Ground for invalidity — Lack of individual character — Articles 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               20.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2014 — Biscuits Poult v OHIM — Banketbakkerij Merba (Biscuit)
   (Case T-494/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a broken cookie - Ground for invalidity - Lack of individual character - Articles 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002))
   2014/C 372/20
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Biscuits Poult SAS (Montauban, France) (represented by: C. Chapoullié, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Banketbakkerij Merba BV (Oosterhout, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Abello, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 August 2012 (Case R 914/2011-3) in relation to invalidity proceedings between Banketbakkerij Merba BV and Biscuits Poult SAS.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action.

               2)

               Orders Biscuits Poult SAS to bear its own expenses and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Banketbakkerij Merba BV.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case C-341/07: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Enforcement of intellectual property rights — Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/11

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-341/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit)
   (2008/C 171/18)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and P. Dejmek, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to have adopted the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45 and — corrigendum — OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.