title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 11 August 1995 in Case C-432/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (Civil Division)): Société d'Informatique Service Réalisation Organisation (SISRO) v. Ampersand Software BV (Brussels Convention - Articles 36, 37 and 38 - Enforcement - Judgment given on an appeal against authorization of enforcement - Appeal on a point of law - Stay of proceedings)

text:
 14 . 10 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 268/5
      products concerned, so that it is important in particular        Article 37 (2) and the first paragraph of Article 38 of the
      to ascertain whether the charge would have the effect,            Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
      on the market in question, of reducing potential                 Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
      consumption of the imported products to the advantage            Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978
      of competing domestic products. The national court               on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and
      must have regard here to the difference between the              the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
      selling prices of the products in question and the impact        are to be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which a
      of that difference on the consumer's choice, as well as to       court of a Contracting State, seised of an appeal against
      changes in the consumption of those products.                    authorization to enforce an enforceable judgment ofa court
                                                                       in another Contracting State, refuses a stay or lifts a stay
                                                                       previously ordered cannot be contested by an appeal in
4 . There are no grounds for limiting in time the effects of           cassation or similar form of appeal limited to the
      the present judgment.                                            examination of points of law only. Moreover, the court
                                                                       seised of such an appeal on a point of law under
(') OJ No C 251 , 15 . 9 . 1993 .
                                                                       Article 37 (2) ofthe Convention dies not have jurisdiction to
                                                                       impose or reimpose such a stay.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                   of 11 August 1995
                        of 11 August 1995                              in Case C-433/93 : Commission of the European
in Case C-432/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany ( 1 )
the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division )): Société                       (Actions against Member States for failure to fulfil
d'Informatique Service Réalisation Organisation ( SISRO )               obligations — Public works and public supply contracts)
                  v. Ampersand Software BV ( ] )                                                 95/C 268/ 10 )
(Brussels Convention — Articles 36, 37 and 38 —
Enforcement — Judgment given on an appeal against
authorization ofenforcement — Appeal on a point oflaw —                               (Language of the case: German)
                       Stay ofproceedings)
                            ( 95/C 268/09 )                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: English)                       In Case C-433/93 : Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities ( agents : Hendrik van Lier and Angela
                                                                       Bardenhewer ) v. Federal Republic of Germany ( agents : Kay
In Case C-432/93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol           Hailbronner, Professor at the University of Konstanz, and
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice           Bernd Kloke ) — application for a declaration that, by failing
of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction                 to adopt or notify within the prescribed period all the
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial               measures necessary to comply with the requirements arising
Matters by the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division ), London,             under Council Directive 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before             amending Directive 77/62/EEC relating to the coordination
that court between Société d'Informatique Service                      of procedures on the award of public supply contracts and
Réalisation Organisation ( SISRO ) and Ampersand Software              repealing certain provisions of Directive 80/767/EEC ( OJ
BV — on the interpretation of Article 37 (2 ) and the first            No L 127, p. 1 ) and under Council Directive 89/440/EEC of
paragraph of Article 38 of the said Convention of                      18 July 1989 amending Directive 71/305/EEC concerning
27 September 1968 ( OJ No L 304 , p . 36 ) as amended by the           coordination of procedures for the award of public works
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the                   contracts ( OJ No L 210, p . 1 ), the Federal Republic of
Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                  Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC
Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( OJ No L 304, p . 1 and            Treaty, now the EC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C.
— as amended — p . 77 ) — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),                 Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G.
composed of: F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), President of           Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and P. Jann ( Presidents of
the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray               Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho
and G. Hirsch, Judges, P. Léger, Advocate-General; D.                  de Almeida, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and L.
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the                     Sevon, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 August 1995 , the                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
operative part of which is as follows:                                 11 August 1995 , in which it:


title: Case C-347/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 12 June 2017 — A, B, C, D, E, F, G v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Rotterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 12 June 2017 — A, B, C, D, E, F, G v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   (Case C-347/17)
   (2017/C 300/20)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Rotterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: A, B, C, D, E, F, G

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the provisions of Annex III, Section II, Chapter IV, point 5 and point 8, to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ 2004 L 139) be interpreted as meaning that a poultry carcass, after evisceration and cleaning, may no longer contain any visible contamination whatsoever?

               2.

               Do the provisions of Annex III, Section II, Chapter IV, point 5 and point 8, to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ 2004 L 139) apply to contamination by faeces, bile and crop contents?

               3.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must the provisions of Annex III, Section II, Chapter IV, point 8, to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ 2004 L 139) then be interpreted as meaning that the cleaning must take place immediately after evisceration, or may the removal of any visible forms of contamination, on the basis of that provision, also take place during chilling, cutting or packaging?

               4.

               Does Annex I, Section 1, Chapter II, Part D, point 1, to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption (OJ 2004 L 139) allow the competent authority, when carrying out controls, to remove carcasses from the slaughter line, and to check both the outside and the inside and under the fat tissue for visible contamination?

               5.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, and visible contamination may therefore remain on a poultry carcass, how must the provisions of points 5 and 8 in Annex III, Section II, Chapter IV, to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (OJ 2004 L 139) then be interpreted? How then will the aim of that regulation, namely, guaranteeing a high level of protection of public health, be achieved?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 139, p. 55.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 139, p. 206.


title: Case T-622/13: Order of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile v OHIM — Norwood Promotional Products Europe (NORTHWOOD professional forest equipment)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/45

         Order of the General Court of 2 October 2014 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile v OHIM — Norwood Promotional Products Europe (NORTHWOOD professional forest equipment)
   (Case T-622/13) (1)

   (2014/C 431/71)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 8.2.2014.


title: Case C-36/05: Action brought on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
               19.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/12

         Action brought on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-36/05)
   (2005/C 69/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Ramón Vidal and Wouter Wils, of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by exempting lending by almost all, if not all, categories of establishments from the obligation to pay a remuneration to authors for the public lending of works protected by copyright, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property (1);

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 1 of Directive 92/100/EEC imposes a duty on Member States to accord authors the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit the lending of his works. Article 5(1) of the Directive provides that the Member States may derogate from that exclusive right, provided that authors at least obtain a remuneration for unauthorised lending. In accordance with Article 5(3) of the Directive, Member States may ‘exempt’ from payment of that remuneration only ‘certain categories of establishments’.
   Articles 17 and 19 of the Ley de Propriedad Intelectual (Law on Intellectual Property) (‘LPI’) recognise, in principle, the exclusive right of authors to authorise lending of their works. However, Article 37.2 of the LPI renders that right meaningless, by exempting practically every, if not all lending from the obligation to obtain the authors' prior authorisation and the obligation to pay a remuneration. On those grounds, the Commission takes the view that Article 37.2 of the LPI is contrary to the Kingdom of Spain's obligations under Articles 1, 5(1) and 5(3) of the Directive.

      (1)  OJ L 346, de 27.11.1992, p. 61.


title: Action brought on 19 September 1996 by Maria Graça de Abreu against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-146/96)

text:
23 . 11 . 96             KN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 354/29
      — The Commission did not submit a proposal for a                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
          generic list to the Council before the entry into force
          of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 .                           — annul the disciplinary decision removing the applicant
                                                                            from his post, adopted by the defendant on 19 January
      — Failure to make public the product specification for                1996 ,
          feta .
      — Failure to make public the list of approved                     — annul the express decision of 1 7 June 1 996 by which the
          supervisory bodies .                                              defendant rejected the applicant's complaint of 5 March
                                                                             1996 ,
      — In determining whether feta should be registered, the
          Commission failed to follow sound administrative              — order the European Parliament to pay the costs .
          practice .
3 . Feta does not meet the conditions for registration                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      pursuant to Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 and the
      registration of feta therefore infringes rules of law             The applicant alleges, first, breach of the obligation to state
      relating to the application of the Treaty within the              the reasons on which a decision is based . He states that the
      meaning of the second paragraph of Article 173 of the             contested disciplinary decision is based on a finding against
      Treaty:                                                           him in criminal proceedings before the Tribunal de Premiere
                                                                        Instance ( Court of First Instance ), Brussels, but fails to take
      — Feta is a generic description .                                 account of the mitigating circumstances accepted by that
                                                                        court at two successive stages in the criminal proceedings .
      — The designation feta does not fulfil the conditions             The applicant considers that the disciplinary authority
          for registration as an indirect designation of origin         thereby failed in its obligation to give reasons , by virtue of
          under Article 2 ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                   which it was required to examine all relevant information
          No 2081 /92 .
                                                                        before adopting the major penalty of removal of the
                                                                        applicant from his post, and committed a manifest error of
4 . The registration of feta infringes fundamental principles           assessment .
      of EC law and thus the Treaty, including Article 6 and
      Article 40 ( 3 ), and the principle of the protection of          The applicant also alleges breach of the duty to have regard
      legitimate expectations for the purposes of the second            for the welfare of officials . He criticizes the disciplinary
      paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty:                           authority for not taking account of his state of health, even
      — The registration of feta as a protected designation of          though the criminal court considered that it warranted a
          origin for the benefit of Greek producers represents          shorter period of imprisonment, suspended subject only to
          discrimination against the applicants in breach of            the condition that his health be monitored by a doctor. For
          Article 6 and Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty.                 the applicant, reasonable discharge of the duty to have
                                                                        regard for the welfare of officials justified a minor
      — The registration of feta in Regulation ( EC )                   disciplinary sanction rather than the major sanction of
          No 1107/96 breaches the principle of the protection           removal from his post.
          of legitimate expectations .
                                                                        Finally, the applicant contends that the disciplinary decision
C ) OJ No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996 , p . 1 .                               undermined his right to a fair hearing since, in its preamble ,
( 2 ) OJ No L 208 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .                             it refers to his ' subsequent attitude' regarding the matters
                                                                        criticized, but gives no specific information relating to such
                                                                        matters .
Action brought on 16 September 1996 by 'Y' against the
                        European Parliament
                           ( Case T-144/96 )                            Action brought on 19 September 1996 by Maria Gra^a de
                                                                        Abreu against the Court of Justice of the European
                             ( 96/C 354/58 )                                                       Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-146/96 )
                 (Language of the case: French)                                                    96/C 354/59 )
An action against the European Parliament was brought                                   (Language of the case: French)
 before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 16 September 1996 by 'Y', represented by
Gerard Colin , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service          An action against the Court of Justice of the European
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari ,                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
 ---pagebreak---  No C 354/30           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23 . 11 . 96
 1996 by Maria Graga de Abreu, residing in Luxembourg,               Action brought on 19 September 1996 by Howard Batho
 represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                 against the Commission of the European Communities
 Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                                    ( Case T-147/96 )
 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
 Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .                                                                   ( 96/C 354/60 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
— annul the decision of the Court of Justice appointing the          Communities was brought before the Court of First
     applicant to the post of typist in Grade C4 in so far as it     Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
     places her in the third step of that grade;                     1996 by Howard Batho, residing at Kraainem ( Belgium ),
                                                                     represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and
                                                                     Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                             service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                     Sari , 30 Rue de Cessange .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, contests the    — annul the decision of the appointing authority
decision of the appointing authority appointing her as a                 confirming, following re-examination of his
probationary official in Grade C4 , step 3 .                             administrative status, the applicant's classification in
                                                                         grade A7,
Originally recruited by the defendant as a member of the            — order the defendant to pay the costs .
temporary staff in Grade C4, she was promoted on 15 July
1993 to Grade C3 , step 4 . After passing open competition
EUR/C/22 , she was finally made a probationary official by          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
virtue of the contested decision . Thus, although recruited to
the post she already occupied, she was not appointed as a
probationary official in the grade which she held before her        The applicant contests the appointing authority's decision
appointment.                                                        confirming his classification in grade A7 upon his
                                                                    appointment as a probationary official in consequence of
                                                                    the placing of his name on the list of suitable candidates in
The applicant claims, in support of her application, that           open competition COM/A/762 . Prior to that appointment,
Council Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 3947/92 is             the applicant had worked for the defendant institution in the
unlawful in that Article 8 thereof requires a member of the         respective positions of national expert on secondment,
temporary staff to be appointed as an official in his or her        temporary agent and member of the auxiliary staff. In the
existing grade in order to be entitled to maintain his or her       context of his duties in the latter post, he had been classified ,
former step . In her opinion, that system of appointment:           in view of his professional experience , in grade A5 , step 3 .
                                                                    He had submitted an initial complaint against his
— penalizes members of the temporary staff who have been            appointment to grade A7; that complaint was expressly
    promoted on their merits, as compared with colleagues           rejected by a decision which had become final . In
    of less merit who, for their part, retain their seniority in    consequence of the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                    of 5 October 1995 in Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v.
    step ,
                                                                    Commission , the applicant applied for revision of the
                                                                    decision classifying him in grade A7 . The rejection of that
— contravenes the principle of career development, since it         application forms the subject-matter of the present
    runs counter to the obligation to encourage, through            dispute .
    promotion, the professional ambitions of the most
    meritorious, best qualified and most experienced
    members of the temporary staff,                                 In support of his claim, he pleads a manifest error of
                                                                    assessment. He points out in that regard that he was
                                                                    recruited as a probationary official in order to perform the
— also contravenes the principle of sound administration            duties attaching to the post occupied by him as a temporary
    since it limits the career prospects of temporary staff in      agent and subsequently as a grade A5 member of the
    the event of their being awarded a promotion, which             auxiliary staff. He considers that, in view of his recruitment
    demotivates the best qualified and most efficient staff         to his post, and having regard to the five years and eleven
    members .
                                                                    months of additional professional experience gained by him ,
                                                                    it is not open to the Commission to assert that the specific
                                                                    needs of the service did not require the recruitment of an
                                                                    official with particular qualifications to perform the duties
                                                                    attaching to the post at issue .


title: Case C-116/07: Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/29

         Action brought on 27 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-116/07)
   (2007/C 95/55)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/28/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/82/EC on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products, or in any event by not communicating such measures to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 30 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 136, p. 58.


title: Case T-53/07: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Trade-Stomil v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Participation in the cartel — Imputability of the offending conduct — Fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Attenuating circumstances)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2011 — Trade-Stomil v Commission
   (Case T-53/07) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market in butadiene rubber and emulsion styrene butadiene rubber - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Participation in the cartel - Imputability of the offending conduct - Fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Attenuating circumstances)
   2011/C 269/94
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Trade-Stomil sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, and E. Batchelor, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: X. Lewis and V. Bottka, and subsequently by V. Bottka and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, so far as Trade-Stomil sp. z o.o. is concerned, of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) or, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on Trade-Stomil.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber) in so far as it concerns Trade-Stomil sp. z o.o.;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case F-30/06: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2010 — Hanot v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/76

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2010 — Hanot v Commission
      (Case F-30/06) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/144)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006, p. 50.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-359/01 P: British Sugar plc v Tate & Lyle plc, Napier Brown & Co. Ltd and Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Sugar market — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Agreement — Effect on trade between Member States — Fine — Proportionality)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-359/01 P: British Sugar plc v Tate & Lyle plc, Napier Brown & Co. Ltd and Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Sugar market - Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) - Agreement - Effect on trade between Member States - Fine - Proportionality)
   (2004/C 118/23)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-359/01 P: appeal by British Sugar plc, established in Peterborough (United Kingdom), (Lawyers: T. Sharpe QC and D. Jowell, barrister, and A. Nourry, solicitor) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2001 in Joined Cases T-202/98, T-204/98 and T-207/98 Tate & Lyle and Others v Commission [2001] ECR II-2035, seeking the annulment of that judgment, the other parties to the proceedings being: Tate & Lyle plc, established in London (United Kingdom), Napier Brown & Co. Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom), applicants at first instance, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: K. Wiedner, assisted by N. Khan, barrister) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A Timmermans and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders British Sugar plc to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 10.11.2001.


title: Case C-84/06: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staat der Nederlanden v Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg, Nederlandse Vereniging van Antroposofische Artsen, Weleda Nederland NV, Wala Nederland NV, (Community code relating to medicinal products for human use — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Registration and marketing authorisation — Anthroposophic medicinal products)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/12

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 20 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Staat der Nederlanden v Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg, Nederlandse Vereniging van Antroposofische Artsen, Weleda Nederland NV, Wala Nederland NV,
   (Case C-84/06) (1)

   (Community code relating to medicinal products for human use - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Registration and marketing authorisation - Anthroposophic medicinal products)
   (2007/C 269/23)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staat der Nederlanden

      Defendants: Antroposana, Patiëntenvereniging voor Antroposofische Gezondheidszorg, Nederlandse Vereniging van Antroposofische Artsen, Weleda Nederland NV, Wala Nederland NV
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67) — Marketing authorisation for anthroposophic medicinal products which are not homeopathic medicinal products within the meaning of Chapter 2 of Title III of the directive — National legislation which makes anthroposophic medicinal products subject to the conditions set out in Chapter 1 of Title III of the directive — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Anthroposophic medicinal products may be marketed only on condition that they have been authorised under one of the procedures referred to in Article 6 of Directive 2001/83 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006.


title: Case C-426/08: Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/31

         Action brought on 25 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Cyprus
   (Case C-426/08)
   (2008/C 285/51)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbaek and I. Khatzigiannis)

      Defendant: Republic of Cyprus
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (1), or in any event by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Cyprus has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Cyprus to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 1 January 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 141.


title: Case C-350/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trieste (Italy) lodged on 21 July 2014  — Florin Lazar, represented in the proceedings by Luigi Erculeo v Allianz SpA

text:
               6.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 351/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale civile di Trieste (Italy) lodged on 21 July 2014 — Florin Lazar, represented in the proceedings by Luigi Erculeo v Allianz SpA
   (Case C-350/14)
   2014/C 351/05
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale civile di Trieste

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Florin Lazar, represented in the proceedings by Luigi Erculeo

      Defendant: Allianz SpA

      Questions referred

   How is Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (1) on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’) to be interpreted in so far as it provides that ‘the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of a tort/delict shall be the law of the country in which the damage occurs’? In particular:

               1.

               How is the term ‘the [place] in which the damage occurs’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 864/2007 to be interpreted in the context of a claim for compensation for material and non-material damage brought by the family members of a person who has died as a result of a road traffic accident which occurred in the State of the court seised, where those family members are resident in another EU Member State and have suffered the damage itself in that other Member State?

               2.

               For the purposes of the application of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 864/2007, do the material and non material damage suffered, in their State of residence, by the close relatives of a person who has died as a result of a road traffic accident which occurred in the State of the court seised constitute ‘damage’ within the meaning of the first part of Article 4(1) of that regulation, or ‘indirect consequences’ within the meaning of the second part of that provision?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) OJ 2007 L 199, p. 40.


title: Case T-147/02: Action brought on 8 May 2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
27.7.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 180/25
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                              Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2002 in case R 748/
Trade mark applied for:       Three-dimensional mark in the                   1999-2, relating to Community trade mark application
                              shape of an upright bottle —                    number 573 303, in so far as it relates to goods in
                              application No 573 725                          Class 32 of the Nice Agreement corresponding to the
                                                                              following description: fruit drinks and fruit juices;
Goods or services:            After limiting the list of goods
                              and services: goods in Class 32
                              (fruit drinks and fruit juices)           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Decision        contested     Refusal to register by the Exam-
before the Board of           iner
Appeal:
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
Appeal:                                                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law relied on:       —     Infringement                of
                                    Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
                                    No 40/94 (1)                        Trade mark applied for:       Three-dimensional mark in the
                              —     No need to refuse the mark                                        shape of an upright bottle —
                                    claimed registration                                              application No 573 303
                              —     Infringement                of
                                    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation       Goods or services:            After limiting the list of goods
                                    No 40/94                                                          and services: goods in Class 32
                                                                                (fruit drinks and fruit juices)
                              —     German registrations       for
                                    upright bottles
                                                                        Decision        contested     Refusal to register by the Exam-
                                                                        before the Board of           iner
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the         Appeal:
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                        Appeal:
                                                                        Pleas in law relied on:       —     Infringement                of
Action brought on 8 May 2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH &                                                           Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
Co. Betriebs KG against the Office for Harmonisation in                                                     No 40/94 (1)
       the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                —     No need to refuse the mark
                                                                                claimed registration
                         (Case T-147/02)
                                                                                —     Infringement                of
                         (2002/C 180/44)                                                                    Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation
                                                                                No 40/94
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                      —     German registrations       for
                                                                                upright bottles
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 May                Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
2002 by SiSi-Werke GmbH & Co. Betriebs KG, of Eppelheim,
Germany, represented by H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumen-
röder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K.Brandt, A. Franke,
U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, E. Pfrang, K. Lochner and B. Ertle,
lawyers.


title: Action brought on 16 October 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-325/95)

text:
No C 333/8            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 12 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Saarlandisches           Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Oberlandesgericht by order of that court of 6 October 1995           Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
in the case of David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen                down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January
Hayes, his wife, in their capacity as a partnership under            1993 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
English civil law, v. Kronenberger GmbH in liquidation,              necessary to comply with the Directives referred to in the
       represented by its liquidator, Klaus D. Wein                  conclusions of the Commission .
                         Case C-323 /95
                                                                     (') OJ No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 41 .
                         ( 95/C 333/ 13 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Saarlandisches
Oberlandesgericht ( Saarland Higher Regional Court ) of
6 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry            Action brought on 16 October 1995 by the Commission of
on 16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 the European Communities against Ireland
David Charles Hayes and Jeanette Karen Hayes, his wife, in
                                                                                Case C-325 /95 )
their capacity as a partnership under English civil law, v.
Kronenberger GmbH in liquidation, represented by its                                           ( 95/C 333/ 15 )
liquidator, Klaus D. Wein, on the following question :
                                                                     An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Where British nationals possessing no residence or assets in         Justice of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
Germany have brought proceedings before a German civil               by the Commission of the European Communities,
court against a limited liability company established in             represented by Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal
Germany for payment of the purchase price of goods                   Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in
supplied, and are required by the competent German court,            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
on application by the defendant, to furnish security for             Centre Wagner.
costs pursuant to paragraph 110 of the German
Zivilprozefiordnung ( Code of Civil Procedure ), does that           The Applicant claims that the Court should :
constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality
contrary to the first paragraph of Article 7 of the EEC              1 . declare that by failing to bring into force the laws,
Treaty ?                                                                 regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                         comply with
                                                                         — Council Directive 91 /67/EEC of 28 January 1991
                                                                             concerning the animal health conditions governing
Action brought on 16 October 1995 by the Commission of                       the placing on the market of aquaculture animals
         the European Communities against Ireland                            and products (');
                       ( Case C-324/95 )                                 — Council Directive 91 /492/EEC of 15 July 1991
                         ( 95/C 333/ 14 )                                    laying down the health conditions for the
                                                                             production and the placing on the market of live
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                    bivalve molluscs ( 2 );
Justice of the European Communities on 16 October 1995
by the Commission of the European Communities,                           — Council Directive 91 /493/EEC of 22 July 1991
represented by Carmel O'Reilly, member of the Legal                          laying down the health conditions for the
Service, acting as agent, with an address for service in                     production and the placing on the market of fishery
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                         products ( 3 );
Centre Wagner .
                                                                         — Council Directive 92/48/EEC of 16 June 1992 laying
The Applicant claims that the Court should :                                 down the minimum hygiene rules applicable to
                                                                             fishery products caught on board certain vessels in
1 . declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or                accordance with Article 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( i ) of Council
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with                       Directive 91 /493/EEC ( 4 ), Ireland has failed to fulfil
    Council Directive 91 /495/EEC of 27 November 1990                        its respective obligations under those Directives;
    concerning public health and animal health problems
    affecting the production and placing on the market of            2 . order Ireland to pay the costs .
    rabbit meat and farmed game meat ( 1 ) Ireland has failed
    to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;                  Pleas in law and main arguments:
2 . order Ireland to pay the costs .                                 Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
                                                                     be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                     Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
                                                                     Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall          down in the directive . That period expired on 1 January
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                1993 without Ireland having enacted the provisions
 ---pagebreak--- 9 . 12 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 333/9
necessary to comply with the Directives referred to in the               Action brought on 17 October 1995 by the Commission of
conclusions of the Commission .                                            the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-327/95 )
(')  OJ  No L 46 , 19 . 2 . 1991 , p . 1 .                                                        ( 95/C 333/ 17 )
(2)  OJ  No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 1 .
(■') OJ  No L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 15 .
(4)  OJ  No L 187, 7 . 7 . 1992 , p . 41 .
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         17 October 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Eugenio de March, Legal
                                                                         Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 1° Juizo Civel da
Comarca de Lisboa by order of that court of 1 1 July 1995 in             The applicant claims that the Court should :
the case of Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, Amandio
Mauricio Martins Pechim and his wife Maria da Luz Lima
Barros Raposo Pechim against CTV — Confecgoes Texteis                    1 . declare that, by imposing a minimum price on oil-cake,
                           de Vouzela, Lda.                                   the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                           ( Case C-326/95 )                                  under the common organization of the market in
                             ( 95/C 333/ 16 )
                                                                              oils and fats established by Council Regulation
                                                                              No 136/66/EEC ( } ) of 22 September 19 66 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
European Communities by order of the 1° Juizo Civel da
Comarca de Lisboa ( Civil Court No 1 , Lisbon ) of 11 July
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                       Pleas in law and main arguments:
16 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Banco de Fomento e Exterior, SA, Amandio Mauricio
Martins Pechim and his wife Maria da Luz Lima Barros                     The oil and fats industry is governed by Regulation
Raposo Pechim against CTV — Confecgoes Texteis de                        No 136/66/EEC of 22 September 1966 and subsequent
Vouzela Lda ., on the following questions :                              amendments . Article 1 lists the products to which it applies
                                                                         ( among them oil-cake and olive-residue oils ), grouping the
                                                                         various categories according to the treatment applied to
1 . Must be BFE be regarded as an ' undertaking' and in                  them by the organization of the market. That treatment
     particular 'a public undertaking', within the meaning of            varies according to the various products and constitutes
     Articles 90 and 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?                          exhaustive and complete regulation of the organization of
                                                                         the agricultural markets in oils and fats, which leaves no
2 . May the advantage which the BFE enjoys over its                      room for unilateral and autonomous action by the Member
     competitors be interpreted as being ' State aid ' within the        States .
     meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome ?
                                                                         The minimum prices for purchase by oil-presses and for sale
3 . Must such advantages be taken to be restrictions to the              by oil producers, imposed in respect of oil-cake by Italian
     freedom to provide services within the Community,                   Law No 1527/61 , mainly concern ( wholesale ) marketing of
     within the meaning of Article 59 of the Treaty of                   a product covered by the common organization of the
     Rome ?                                                              market in oil and fats .
4 . Do Articles 59 , 90 ( 1 ), and 92 ( 1 ) of the Treaty of Rome        It follows that the Law is contrary to and incompatible with
     have direct effect and may they be relied upon in the               the provisions governing the aforementioned common
     present proceedings ?                                               organization of the market inasmuch as it constitutes a
                                                                         national intervention measure in a field where Community
5 . Do the rules of the Treaty of Rome take precedence over              rules are exhaustive .
     and negate any conflicting national law ?
                                                                         The arguments put forward by the Italian authorities to
6 . Does the present case concern a question of Community                justify keeping in force the mandatory fixing of the
     law, or is the interpretation thereof sufficiently clear and        minimum price of oil-cake are not, in the view of the
     self-evident such as to obviate the need to make a                  Commission, of such a kind as to bring to an end the
     reference for a preliminary ruling ?                                infringement at issue . Even if it were to be accepted that the
                                                                         imposition of a minimum price could contribute to attaining
                                                                         objectives in themselves worthy of protection, it would not
                                                                         however render lawful the choice of an instrument which


title: Case T-136/11: Action brought on 10 March 2011 — pelicantravel.com v OHIM — Pelikan (Pelikan)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/23

         Action brought on 10 March 2011 — pelicantravel.com v OHIM — Pelikan (Pelikan)
   (Case T-136/11)
   2011/C 139/44
   Language in which the application was lodged: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: pelicantravel.com (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) (represented by: M. Chlipala, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Hannover, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December 2010 in Case R 1428/2009-2;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: figurative trade mark “Pelikan” for services in Classes 35 and 39 (Community trade mark no 3 325 941).

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Pelikan Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The Applicant

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The applicant was acting in bad faith when filing the application for the trade mark [Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1)].

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for declaration of invalidity dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, inasmuch as OHIM incorrectly assessed the facts, evidence and law, and thereby came to the incorrect conclusion that the trade mark in question was not lodged in bad faith.

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


               17.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/7

         Action brought on 2 June 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-4/17)
   (2017/C 271/06)
   An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 2 June 2017 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Maria Moustakali, Øyvind Bø and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to declare that:

               1.

               The Kingdom of Norway has breached provisions of the Act referred to at point 2 of Annex XVI to the EEA Agreement, Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (1), by incorrectly classifying a public contract and by carrying out a tender procedure for the construction and operation of an underground car park under Torvet in Kristiansand which is not in line with the requirements under the EEA rules on public procurement. Specifically, the Kingdom of Norway has:

                           i.

                           incorrectly described the subject matter of the public contract by failing to use the correct, or at any rate a complete and sufficiently precise, set of CPV codes, in breach of Article 58(2) of the Directive, in conjunction with Article 1(14) of the Directive and the Act referred to at point 6a of Annex XVI to the EEA Agreement (Regulation (EC) No 2195/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 on the CPV);

                           ii.

                           failed to publish a contract notice EEA-wide in the Official Journal of the European Union and the TED database in accordance with the legal requirements laid down in Article 58 of the Directive and;

                           iii.

                           not respected the minimum time limit for the submission of applications in an award procedure, as prescribed by Article 59 of the Directive.

               2.

               The Kingdom of Norway bears the costs of the proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               In April 2015, the Municipality of Kristiansand in southern Norway launched a tender procedure for the construction and operation of a large underground car park underneath the main town square, known as ‘Torvet’, in Kristiansand.

               —

               ESA claims that the project was not tendered out as a public works concession. Instead, the project was incorrectly described as being merely for the provision of ‘parking services’ and the tender procedure did not comply with the detailed rules laid down in EEA law governing public works concession tenders, notably Directive 2004/18/EC on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts.

               —

               ESA seeks a declaration that Norway has: incorrectly described the subject matter of the public contract by failing to use the correct, or at any rate a complete and sufficiently precise set of CPV codes; failed to publish a contract notice EEA-wide in the Official Journal of the European Union and the TED database; and not respected the minimum time limit for the submission of applications in an award procedure.

               —

               The specific contract in issue was expressed as concerning the ‘design, construction, financing and the operation of an underground car park’. The tender was published in the Norwegian national notification database for public procurement, Doffin, on 20 April 2015, using the CPV code equivalent for ‘parking services’.

               —

               According to the contract notice, the value of the contract has been estimated to be between 24 000 000 and 100 000 000 NOK.

               —

               Only one tender was submitted within the prescribed deadline on 15 May 2015. The tender was revised after negotiations, and the contract was eventually awarded on 24 June 2015 and signed by the parties on 29 June 2015.

      (1)  OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114


title: Case C-82/13: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Società cooperativa Madonna dei miracoli v Regione Abruzzo, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (Request for a preliminary ruling — Common agricultural policy — Joint actions — Non-payment of financial aid by the Commission — Withdrawal by a Member State of its contribution — Question of fact — Internal situation — Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court — Description of the factual context — Insufficiency — Hypothetical question — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/5

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Società cooperativa Madonna dei miracoli v Regione Abruzzo, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali
   (Case C-82/13) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Common agricultural policy - Joint actions - Non-payment of financial aid by the Commission - Withdrawal by a Member State of its contribution - Question of fact - Internal situation - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court - Description of the factual context - Insufficiency - Hypothetical question - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 377/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Società cooperativa Madonna dei miracoli

      Defendant: Regione Abruzzo, Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 185, p. 9), of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1), of Council Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 of 29 March 1990 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products (OJ 1990 L 91, p. 1), and of Commission Decision 90/342/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the selection criteria to be adopted for investments for improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural and forestry products (OJ 1990 L 173, p. 71) — Joint actions — Non-payment of financial aid by the Commission — Member State not having paid its contribution following the Commission’s failure to pay the aid

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly lacks jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Consiglio di Stato (Italy).

               2.

               As to the remainder, the request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case C-487/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 June 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Articles 56 EC and 40 of the EEA Agreement — Difference in treatment — Dividends distributed to resident and non-resident companies)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 June 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-487/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Articles 56 EC and 40 of the EEA Agreement - Difference in treatment - Dividends distributed to resident and non-resident companies)
   2010/C 209/08
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and I. Martinez del Peral, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 56 EC and 40 EEA — Different treatment given to dividends distributed to domestic and foreign shareholders

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by making the exemption of dividends distributed by companies resident in Spain subject to a level of holding by the recipient companies in the distributing companies which is higher for recipient companies residing in another Member State than for recipient companies resident in Spain, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56(1) EC.

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder.

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the Kingdom of Spain to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Action brought on 8 August 1997 by Folmer Bang-Hansen against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-233/97)

text:
C 318/32                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18 . 10 . 97
grant in question, the administration had concluded that                taken into account for the transfer of pension rights
the grant could no longer be regarded as an allowance of                should be calculated for each transfer separately. In its
like nature to the household allowance provided for in                  submission, the conversion calculations used by the
Article 1 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and that it             applicant would result in a number of years of
had therefore been decided that it would no longer deduct               pensionable service greater than the number of years in
that grant from the household allowance paid to the                     which the applicant was affiliated to the Danish pension
applicants . The applicants thereupon requested retroactive             funds in question.
reimbursement of all of the sums deducted together with
default interest. Those requests were rejected by the                   The applicant considers in that respect that the wording of
defendant .
                                                                        Article 11 ( 2 ) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations is
                                                                        perfectly clear, in that it concerns retirement pension rights
The pleas in law and main arguments advanced by the                     acquired through the pursuit by an official of an activity
applicants against those rejection decisions are the same as            in an employed or self-employed capacity before he took
those in Case T-181 /97 (').                                            up his duties. The 'period' of prior service is thus credited
                                                                        and taken into account in calculating the retirement
(') Case T-181 /97 Meyer and Others v. Court of Justice ( OJ            pension provided for in the Staff Regulations. It follows,
    C 252 , 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 35 ).                                     in his submission, that both the wording and the rationale
                                                                        of the Staff Regulations require the Community institution
                                                                        to take into account the whole of the rights acquired by
                                                                        the official concerned before he took up his duties.
                                                                        What is to be taken into account in that respect is, he
Action brought on 8 August 1997 by Folmer Bang                         argues, the retirement pension rights acquired by reason of
                                                                        those activities, whether or not those activities were on an
      Hansen against the Commission of the European
                              Communities                               employed basis. The Commission should therefore have
                                                                        taken into account all contributions giving rise to pension
                           ( Case T-233/97 )                            rights, the essential point being to define the rights to
                             ( 97/C 318/61 )                            which those contributions gave rise . It is those rights, the
                                                                        applicant argues, and not, in themselves, the contributions
                                                                        and the funds to which they are paid, which underlie the
                   (Language of the case: French)                       letter and the spirit of the provision of the Staff
                                                                        Regulations cited above .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       There is therefore nothing to prevent the transfer amounts
Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1997                   in question — even though emanating from two different
by Folmer Bang-Hansen, residing in Overijse ( Belgium ),                funds, each establishing as far as it is concerned the
represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an              amount of the actuarial equivalent — from being added
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                    together in order to determine the number of years of
Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.                                pensionable service to be taken into account and the
                                                                        resulting credit. In the applicant's submission, it is only
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the aggregation of rights which corresponds to the
                                                                        intention of the Community legislature, since it is the
                                                                        whole of those rights which he has acquired by way of
— annul the decision of 16 October 1996 ( Reference                     retirement pension.
     IX.B.6/LAD ) ( 96 ) 14687), signed by E. Tserepa ( Head
     of the Transfers Sector ), whereby the Commission
     decided that the limitation of the period to be taken              The applicant ends by arguing that any general provision
     into account for a transfer of pension rights was to be            for implementing the rules in the Staff Regulations
     calculated separately for each transfer, and therefore             which supports the interpretation put forward by the
     refused the applicant's request to aggregate transfers             Commission should be regarded as unlawful .
     from Andelspensionsforeningen and Juristernes Pen
     sionskasse,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .
                                                                        Action brought on 6 August 1997 by Franco Campoli
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Case T-235/97
The applicant complains of the Commission's refusal to                                           ( 97/C 318/62 )
 aggregate transfers emanating from two Danish pension
 funds to which he had successively contributed before he
took up his duties with the Commission, for the purposes                                (Language of the case: Italian)
 of calculating the period to be taken into account on a
transfer of pension rights. The Commission justified its                An action against the Commission of the European
refusal on the basis that the limitation of the period to be             Communities was brought before the Court of First


15.5.1999               EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 136/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione                              Removal from the registrer of Case C-329/98 (1)
Tributaria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, by order
of that court of 14 January, 25 February and 11 March                                                (1999/C 136/26)
1999 in the case of Veneta Assicurazione SpA against
                 Ufficio del Registro di Padova
                                                                             By order of 12 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                          (Case C-102/99)                                    from the register of Case C-329/98: Commission of the
                                                                             European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
                          (1999/C 136/23)
                                                                             (1) OJ C 327, 24.10.1998.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Commissione Tributa-
ria Regionale di Venezia — Sezione No 6, (Regional Tax Court
— Sixth Chamber, Venice) of 14 January, 25 February and
11 March 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
22 March 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Veneta
Assicurazione SpA against Ufficio del Registro di Padova on
the question whether or not Note I to Article 4, Part I, of                         Removal from the register of Case C-85/98 (1)
Presidential Decree No 131/86 is contrary to the provisions of
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), as subsequently amended.                                                   (1999/C 136/27)
                                                                             By order of 16 February 1999 the President of the Court of
                                                                             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                             from the register of Case C-85/98: Commission of the
(1) OJ, English special edition, Series I 1969(II), p. 412.                  European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-413/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/24)                                           Removal from the register of Case C-396/97 (1)
By order of 8 February 1999 the President of the First Chamber                                       (1999/C 136/28)
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-413/97:
Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic                    By order of 23 February 1999 the President of the First
of Germany.                                                                  Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                             has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-396/97:
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P (1)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-429/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 136/25)
                                                                                (1999/C 136/29)
By order of 11 February 1999 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  By order of 24 February 1999 the President of the Court of
has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-300/97 P:                Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Tiercé Ladbroke SA v Commission of the European Communi-                     from the register of Case C-429/98: Commission of the
ties.                                                                        European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                                    (1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999.


title: Case C-243/13: Action brought on 30 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/12

         Action brought on 30 April 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-243/13)
   2013/C 189/23
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J. Enegren and S. Petrova, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-607/10, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260(1) TFEU;

               —

               Order Sweden to pay to the Commission, into the ‘European Union own resources’ account, a fine of EUR 14 912 per day for each day that the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-607/10 have not been adopted, with effect from the date on which the judgment in that case was delivered until the date on which the judgment in Case C-607/10 is complied with;

               —

               Order Sweden to pay to the Commission, into the same account, a lump sum of EUR 4 893 per day for each day that the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-607/10 have not been adopted, with effect from the date on which the judgment in that case was delivered until the date on which judgment is given in the present case or the date on which the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-607/10 are adopted, if that is earlier;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In its judgment of 29 March 2012 in Case C-607/10 European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden, the Court held that ‘1. … by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent national authorities see to it, by means of permits issued in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (Codified version) or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that all existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive.’
   The Kingdom of Sweden has not yet adopted any measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-607/10. The Commission has therefore brought this action in accordance with Article 260(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and seeks an order imposing economic sanctions on the Kingdom of Sweden.


title: Case C-416/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Tercera by order of 3 October 2001 in the case of Sociedad Cooperativa General Agropecuaria (ACOR) and Administración General del Estado, Azucareras Reunidas de Jaén and Azucarera Ebro Agrícolas SA

text:
6.4.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 84/35
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-                              2.2.1. the fact that shortly after the employment
gerichtshof by order of that court of 13 September 2001                                     relationship ended he became eligible for entry
in the case of Franca Ninni-Orsache v Bundesminister für                                    to university in the host country by virtue of
              Wissenschaft, Verkehr und Kunst                                               having completed his schooling in his country
                                                                                of origin and/or
                         (Case C-413/01)
                                                                                2.2.2. immediately following termination of that
                          (2002/C 84/58)                                                    employment relationship until beginning his
                                                                                studies, he was looking for another job?
                                                                          Is it relevant to the answer to this question that the other job
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          sought by the person in question constitutes a sort of
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
                                                                          continuation at a similar (low) level of the job which he was
hof (Administrative Court of Appeal) of 13 September 2001
                                                                          doing for a fixed period but which has come to an end, or a
which was received at the Court Registry on 17 October 2001,
                                                                          job which corresponds to the higher level of education
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Franca Ninni-Orsache v
                                                                          achieved in the meantime?
Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Verkehr und Kunst on the
following questions:
1.1.     Does the fact that an EU citizen works for a short
         period (two and a half months) that is fixed from the
         outset in a Member State of which he is not a national
         confer on him the status of a worker under Article 48
         of the EC Treaty (now Article 39 EC)?
1.2.     When determining whether he is a worker in the
         above sense in such a case, are any of the following             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
         circumstances significant:                                       mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Ter-
                                                                          cera by order of 3 October 2001 in the case of Sociedad
                                                                          Cooperativa General Agropecuaria (ACOR) and Adminis-
         1.2.1.     the fact that he took up the job only some            tración General del Estado, Azucareras Reunidas de Jaén
                    years after his entry into the host State;                           and Azucarera Ebro Agrı́colas SA
         1.2.2.     the fact that shortly after the end of his short,                              (Case C-416/01)
                    fixed-term employment relationship he
                    became eligible for entry to university in the
                    host country by virtue of having completed                                      (2002/C 84/59)
                    his schooling in his country of origin;
         1.2.3.     the fact that he attempted to find a new job
                    in the period between the end of the short,
                    fixed-term employment relationship and the            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                    time when he took up his studies?                     European Communities by order of 3 October 2001 by the
                                                                          Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court), Sala de lo Contencioso-
                                                                          Administrativo, Sección Tercera, (Chamber for Contentious
                                                                          Administrative Proceedings, Division Three), which was
2.     If he is a (migrant) worker under Question 1:                      received at the Court Registry on 22 October 2001, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Sociedad Cooperativa General
                                                                          Agropecuaria (ACOR) and Administración General del Estado,
2.1.    Does the termination, by expiry of time, of an employ-            Azucareras Reunidas de Jaén and Azucarera Ebro Agrı́colas SA
        ment relationship which is limited from the outset to             on the following questions:
        a fixed term constitute a voluntary termination?
2.2.    If so, in such a case, when assessing whether or not              If, in the exercise of its power of administrative review of a
        the termination of the employment relationship was                merger of undertakings, the authorities of a Member State
        voluntary or involuntary, are any of the following                deem it necessary to redistribute sugar production quotas
        circumstances significant, either in themselves or in             among undertakings situated in its territory in order to
        conjunction with the other factors referred to herein:            safeguard competition:
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/36                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
(a)   Do the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC)                     under which an insurance policy issued by an insurance
      No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 (1) and/or of Council                  company in the UK, Germany or Denmark which meets the
      Regulation (EEC) No 193/82 of 26 January 1982 (2)                 conditions laid down in Sweden for occupational pension
      preclude those authorities from stipulating that such a           insurance — apart from the condition that the policy must be
      transfer or reallocation of quotas is for value and,              issued by an insurance company operating in Sweden — is
      therefore, that the recipient undertaking or undertakings         treated as an endowment insurance policy with income tax
      must pay financial consideration?                                 effects which, depending on the circumstances in the individual
                                                                        case, may be less favourable than the tax effects of an
                                                                        occupational pension policy?
(b) Even if the answer is in the negative, do the same
      provisions nevertheless preclude the price of the quota to
      be transferred, and the distribution thereof, from being
      decided by public auction? Do those provisions preclude
      recourse to public auction even where it has been
      stipulated that, as part of the reallocation of quotas
      carried out by such a procedure, the measures required to         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
      prevent any possible negative repercussions for national          Cassation, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by judgment of
      agricultural producers of sugar beet will be adopted?             that court of 8 November 2001 in the case of Design
                                                                                Concept SA v Flanders Expo SA
(c)   Is the interpretation of Community law the same, and
      must the answers also be so, in the light of Council                                       (Case C-438/01)
      Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 (3) on
      the common organisation of the markets in the sugar                                         (2002/C 84/61)
      sector, which repeals the earlier regulations?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) On the common organization of the markets in the sugar sector       European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de Cas-
    (OJ 1981 L 177, p. 4).                                              sation (Court of Cassation), Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, of
(2) Laying down general rules for transfers of quotas in the sugar      8 November 2001, which was received at the Court Registry
    sector (OJ 1982 L 21, p. 3).                                        on 13 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
 3
( ) OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1.                                                Design Concept SA v Flanders Expo SA on the following
                                                                        question:
                                                                        ‘Is Article 9(2)(e) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
                                                                        17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
                                                                        States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
                                                                        value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), concerning
                                                                        “advertising services”, applicable to services supplied indirectly
                                                                        to the advertiser and invoiced to a third party who in turn
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrät-               invoices them to the advertiser, if the advertiser does not
ten (Supreme Administrative Court) of 23 October 2001                   produce goods in the price of which the cost of the services is
in the case of Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia and Ola                  going to be included?’
     Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket (National Tax Board)
                                                                        (1) OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.
                         (Case C-422/01)
                          (2002/C 84/60)
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  tungsgericht by order of 18 September 2001 in the
European Communities by a decision of the Regeringsrätten               case of Stadt Villingen-Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua
of 23 October 2001, which was received at the Court Registry                                         Owusu
on 25 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia and Ola Ramstedt v Riksskat-                                     (Case C-444/01)
teverket on the following question:
                                                                                (2002/C 84/62)
Are the provisions of Community law on freedom of move-
ment for persons, services and capital, in particular Article 49
EC, in conjunction with Article 12 EC, to be interpreted as             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
meaning that they preclude application of national tax rules            European Communities by order of 18 September 2001 by


title: Case T-184/07: Action brought on 25 May 2007 — Avon Products v OHIM (ANEW ALTERNATIVE)

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/33

         Action brought on 25 May 2007 — Avon Products v OHIM (ANEW ALTERNATIVE)
   (Case T-184/07)
   (2007/C 170/65)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Avon Products, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: C. Heitmann-Lichtenstein, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 March 2007 in Case R 1471/2006-2;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ANEW ALTERNATIVE’ for goods in class 3 — application No 4 357 919

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and of the principle of equal treatment.